Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Administrative agencies are created by the federal Constitution, the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and local lawmaking bodies to manage crises, redress serious social problems, or oversee complex matters of governmental concern beyond the expertise of legislators.
Administrative agency rules and regulations often have the force of law against individuals. This tendency has led many critics to charge that the creation of agencies circumvents the constitutional directive that laws are to be created by elected officials.
Most federal law is created by the agencies and departments that make up the national bureaucracy, not by Congress. Congress passes laws delegating its legislative power to these agencies and departments, and they in turn develop the laws with which we must comply.
The administrative state violates the principle of the separation of powers by breaking down the divisions between the constitutional branches of government. Power is transferred from Congress to agencies and departments, which are then influenced by all three branches of government but not directly accountable to any, and the effect of checks and balances is reversed.
I am afraid it is you who have little knowledge of what you speak.
Can you see that none of this has anything to do with what I wrote?
You wrote:
Quote:
Ordinances are written by appointed bureaucrats who do not even have the credibility of elected office.
And I pointed out to you:
Quote:
In addition, you're just wrong about ordinances: they are generally enacted by the elected officials of a city, town, or other local unit of government.
No matter how much you post about administrative agencies, it will never contradict the fact that ordinances are generally enacted by elected municipal bodies, such as a city council. If you want to talk about administrative agencies, they do, in fact, adopt regulations. It's just not what we're talking about here.
Can you see that none of this has anything to do with what I wrote?
You wrote:
And I pointed out to you:
No matter how much you post about administrative agencies, it will never contradict the fact that ordinances are generally enacted by elected municipal bodies, such as a city council. If you want to talk about administrative agencies, they do, in fact, adopt regulations. It's just not what we're talking about here.
Law making is a very convoluted and corrupt process.
The so called law makers whether in local, state or federal government rarely write the law these days, or even care to know what is in it if you believe Nancy Pelosi.
The truth is most law today is written by corporate lawyers who make laws to financially benefit their corporations, and bribe politicians by way of lobbying to sponsor it.
The remainder of the laws are written by bureaucrats with the intent of enlarging the role of government and thereby their own importance.
Energy deregulation was written by Utility company corporate lawyers while ACA was written by the lawyers of Keiser and Blue Cross who will monopolize the health care industry going forward.
It is all about the money. Some people are just far too naive to see the truth.
If the freedom and liberty of the American people is sacrificed for the pursuit of profit then that is just the American way, in the meantime poor bastards like the man who was the subject of this thread are hassled , fined, and probably eventually jailed for standing up for his right to fish.
Try reading and responding to what I said, or better yet, go to the link I posted. You will see that there are many types of arguments, but they fall into certain patterns. To take an example you may be aware of, "mistaken identity" could be seen as a type of argument; nobody would dismiss all mistaken identity arguments because some are well founded and others are not.
In this instance, arguments that "the court lacks jurisdiction based on the presence of a fringe on the flag" is an entire category of argument, arguments that "the court lacks jurisdiction based on the use or nonuse of the defendant's preferred typography is another. Without looking at every individual case in which these arguments have been raised it is absolutely possible and correct to determine that every such argument is illegitimate because there is no principle of American law that would substantiate the defendants' claims in these cases.
No one who us interested in serious legal research is going to take seriously, let alone click on, a link that has a title that begins with "idiot".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sovereign citizen argues with judge
