Fire This Bitch

[JumpingPete]

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

The laws they apply are constitutional and applied fairly. What a shame you don't get that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of which they (agencies) decide the regulations, which have often been found to NOT follow the intent of the law? There when that regulation is found NOT to follow intent, it is not law. Now who is the dumbass.

Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution

Our duty as citizens is to question when regulations do not appear to follow intent of the law. Fox questioned the wording and intent of the fec's regulation, as is their right. Fine was dropped.

Law? She doesn't know what she is even talking about. It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

neither do you, just what is the basis for the "regulations" they are responsible for enforcing? LAWS you dumbass.

Would you recommend to a firearms dealer/retailer who believes background checks are unconstitutional to simply follow his own opinion and stop doing background checks,

secure in the belief that he has the right to interpret the constitution himself without penalty?