High Court Missionaries

[Crick]

All laws have been voted on and passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. All of them. In many instances, Congress has passed laws giving broad direction to Executive branch agencies and DIRECTION to write regulations conforming to and enforcing the directive legislation. It is commonplace. It's informative to see you all treat the EPA as your new boogeyman. It makes it clear that your motivation denying AGW isn't based even on some warped and misguided idea of sound science.

 

[Flanders]

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Article II, Section 3

To Crick: There is no way in hell Article III can be stretched to give 20th federal bureaucracies jurisdiction over the Courts; less so after the amendments I cited were ratified. Indeed, Article III supports my position.

Article III​

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Justices in recent decades refuse to assert their Court’s authority. My guess is that they do not want to give everybody accused of a crime their day in court.

Were you thinking that the Executive WASN'T responsible for enforcing law?

To Crick: No. I am thinking that the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the law with law enforcement agencies not federal bureaucracies created specifically to enforce one law. If the EPA is allowed to stand, how many bureaucracies will there be in fifty years; each one enforcing one law only? And how many armed bureaucrats will it take to enforce their special law?

So the executive isn't ENFORCING the law --- it is SUPERVISING THE CREATION of the law.

To flacaltenn: Right on point.

That was never the point. The PPACA was PASSED by Congress and signed by the president. It is LAW established by the Legislative Branch and to be enforced by the Executive.

To Crick: BUT NOT BY BUREAUCRACIES.

NOTE: Arming federal bureaucrats is a step towards turning bureaucracies into law enforcement agencies that get around giving the accused their day in court. Bottom line: No one dare accuse a bureaucrat enforcing one specific law of violating the Constitution.

But, to be honest, I thought we were talking about the enforcement practices and authorization of the EPA. Actually, I'm quite certain that's what we were talking about. This is the Environment Forum, dude. Why would we be talking about the Affordable Care Act?

To Crick: Threads often go much further afield; so it’s not unreasonable to cover every bureaucracy that goes down the road pioneered by the EPA.

All laws have been voted on and passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. All of them. In many instances, Congress has passed laws giving broad direction to Executive branch agencies and DIRECTION to write regulations conforming to and enforcing the directive legislation. It is commonplace. It's informative to see you all treat the EPA as your new boogeyman. It makes it clear that your motivation denying AGW isn't based even on some warped and misguided idea of sound science.

To Crick: Not even Congress can take away a Right guarantied in the Constitution without first AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. In addition to the other Rights the EPA takes away by regulation, this Right should be specific enough for you to understand what is happening:

VI Amendment ​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, if you want to argue that violators of the Clean Air Act are not criminals I’m more than willing to examine your position.

 

[Crick]

You're going to have to spell out for me in precise legalese what distinction you're making between agencies of the Executive Branch and "bureaucracies".

 

[skookerasbil]

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Article II, Section 3

To Crick: There is no way in hell Article III can be stretched to give 20th federal bureaucracies jurisdiction over the Courts; less so after the amendments I cited were ratified. Indeed, Article III supports my position.

Article III​

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Justices in recent decades refuse to assert their Court’s authority. My guess is that they do not want to give everybody accused of a crime their day in court.



To Crick: No. I am thinking that the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the law with law enforcement agencies not federal bureaucracies created specifically to enforce one law. If the EPA is allowed to stand, how many bureaucracies will there be in fifty years; each one enforcing one law only? And how many armed bureaucrats will it take to enforce their special law?



To flacaltenn: Right on point.



To Crick: BUT NOT BY BUREAUCRACIES.

NOTE: Arming federal bureaucrats is a step towards turning bureaucracies into law enforcement agencies that get around giving the accused their day in court. Bottom line: No one dare accuse a bureaucrat enforcing one specific law of violating the Constitution.



To Crick: Threads often go much further afield; so it’s not unreasonable to cover every bureaucracy that goes down the road pioneered by the EPA.

All laws have been voted on and passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. All of them. In many instances, Congress has passed laws giving broad direction to Executive branch agencies and DIRECTION to write regulations conforming to and enforcing the directive legislation. It is commonplace. It's informative to see you all treat the EPA as your new boogeyman. It makes it clear that your motivation denying AGW isn't based even on some warped and misguided idea of sound science.

To Crick: Not even Congress can take away a Right guarantied in the Constitution without first AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. In addition to the other Rights the EPA takes away by regulation, this Right should be specific enough for you to understand what is happening:

VI Amendment ​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, if you want to argue that violators of the Clean Air Act are not criminals I’m more than willing to examine your position.

Flanders......these knuckleheads see the Constitution as something that came out of a Cracker Jack box. For these America haters, the laws should be whatever you want them to be on a given day!! Hey.....when the SHTF, I'm going to their houses and taking all their shit and laughing my balls off while I do it I might add!!

 

[Flanders]

You're going to have to spell out for me in precise legalese what distinction you're making between agencies of the Executive Branch and "bureaucracies".

To Crick: Precise legalese! I’m not a lawyer. I’m an average guy trying to cope with liberal crapola.

In any event the distinction is clear. The Executive Branch cannot use federal bureaucracies like the EPA, HHS, the Department of Education and so on to punish; or at least they shouldn’t.

NOTE: The ACA was written to enrich the parasite class by dictating the behavior of every American. The ACA was not designed to punish a specific criminal act, yet IRS enforcement makes criminals out of law-abiding Americans who refuse to modify their behavior. In short: Every law written by social engineers is unenforceable without criminal penalties attached; yet such laws do not come under the heading of criminal law.

Incidentally, the FBI, Treasury, the US Postal Inspection Service are federal bureaucracies, but they must gather evidence that must stand up in court before they arrest anyone. The accused then gets a trial in open court.

Let’s cut to the chase. The EPA, HHS, and even the IRS punishing so-called violators of the ACA, are dictating behavior. The things they are doing have no resemblance to law equally applied to everyone. If you cannot see that the way they circumvent the VI Amendment takes away Rights guarantied in the Constitution there is nothing further to discuss.

For these America haters, the laws should be whatever you want them to be on a given day!! Hey.....

To skookerasbil: Much worse. The America-haters are like spiteful children who threaten permissive parents. They all sound like barroom pundits spouting sophomoric circular logic just to show how smart they are.

 

[Crick]

If you cannot see that the way they circumvent the VI Amendment takes away Rights guarantied (sic) in the Constitution there is nothing further to discuss.

Then there is nothing further to discuss.

 

[Flanders]

Anybody who thinks the EPA is all about protecting Americans from big corporations better read this article:

The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly floated a rule claiming authority to bypass the courts and unilaterally garnish paychecks of those accused of violating its rules, a power currently used by agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service.

The EPA has been flexing its regulatory muscle under President Obama, collecting more fines each year and hitting individuals with costly penalties for violating environmental rules, including recently slapping a $75,000 fine on Wyoming homeowner Andy Johnson for building a pond on his rural property.

"The EPA has a history of overreaching its authority. It seems like once again the EPA is trying to take power it doesn't have away from American citizens," Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican, said when he learned of the EPA's wage garnishment scheme.

Power grab: EPA wants to garnish wages of polluters
Accused violators of pollution laws would have little recourse
By S.A. Miller
The Washington Times
Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Power grab: EPA wants to garnish wages of polluters - Washington Times​

 

[jc456]

All laws have been voted on and passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. All of them. In many instances, Congress has passed laws giving broad direction to Executive branch agencies and DIRECTION to write regulations conforming to and enforcing the directive legislation. It is commonplace. It's informative to see you all treat the EPA as your new boogeyman. It makes it clear that your motivation denying AGW isn't based even on some warped and misguided idea of sound science.

My denying AGW stems from the fact that no one has proven it. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that you can't, just justifies my position. So based merely on that fact, anything the EPA does is out of context and isn't in step with what is reality. It is nothing more than a bunch of bureaucrats punishing the populous. And knowing they are.

I'll remain loyal to my belief, and that belief is there is no evidence to support AGW or that 120PPM of CO2 drives temperatures, and that without that proof anyone who believes it does, are stupid and blind!