Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I thought Ron was referring to congress voting to waste money (happens
a lot) and that (hopefully) DOGE will do something about that.

No. I was referring to the fact that the Bureaucracy has the ability to, effectively, create laws by creating rules without going through the legislature that have the force of law behind them.

Mike's quote of the Chevron case is a misdirection.


... Are you on an ego trip? You forgot your luggage.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

Government organizations like those, they were actually making laws? I
was never aware of that (but I wasn't paying close attention to that issue.)

As usual, Mike is just blowing smoke.

Remember Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?

That was a reference to how the Dems in the Legislature were building the Bureaucracy. The Dems, when they had a majority, simply passed a law saying "<that gov't agency> has the power to make the rules on <topic>".

This allows the bureaucracy to make a rule that has the force of law behind it. In effect, to make a law - but without legislature, which is unconstitutional.

The USSC is great but they can't help us with "trust the experts syndrome."

The Chevron decision took care of that. The "experts" now have to prove themselves in court. But the many, many, many "rules" that have been created by the Bureaucracy without legislative oversight are still in place.


... Cross river *THEN* insult alligator.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

I thought Ron was referring to congress voting to waste money

happens

lot) and that (hopefully) DOGE will do something about that.

Congresspersons are not bureaucrats. Ron was complaining about bureaucrats who are usually appointed or hired, not elected, and that work for the "bureaus" like the FDA or FTC. I was pointing out, to you, that his complaint/information is mostly moot as these bureaus no longer have the authority that he is claiming they do. As of earlier this year, the SCOTUS stripped them of these powers.

Government organizations like those, they were actually making laws? I was never aware of that (but I wasn't paying close attention to that issue.)

They were really not making laws, per se, but they had a freer reign on how they interpreted laws. I think they could also make "rules" and "statutes" based on their interpretations of existing laws, and were often able to
enforce these "rules" and "statutes."

I'm glad that it's been corrected, but there's always going to exist the problem of "experts" calling the shots. Like Dr Fauci for example. He didn't make any laws, but leaders (like then Gov Cuomo) made executive order based

n

Fauci's "expert advice." (Like NY's vaccine mandate.)

The USSC is great but they can't help us with "trust the experts syndrome."

Neither can the DOGE. The DOGE won't have the authority to tell states not
to do such things, so long as what the state is doing is their right under
the US Constitution.


* SLMR 2.1a * 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Ron -> You

Government organizations like those, they were actually making laws? I was never aware of that (but I wasn't paying close attention to that issue.)

As usual, Mike is just blowing smoke.

Ron is the one blowing smoke. Per his admission, he cannot see my posts so presumably has no idea what I have been talking about... or he is a liar and can still read everything I post.

So either he is clueless or a liar. You can pick which one you want to believe.


* SLMR 2.1a * Got my tie caught in the fax... Suddenly I was in L.A.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Remember Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?

I don't remember her saying it but it sounds like something she'd say.

That was a reference to how the Dems in the Legislature were building the Bureaucracy. The Dems, when they had a majority, simply passed a law saying "<that gov't agency> has the power to make the rules on <topic>".

I get it. So that party is over now, but we're still stuck with all the "laws" that were enacted during it's heyday.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

I get it. So that party is over now, but we're still stuck with all the "laws" that were enacted during it's heyday.

For now, at least. The laws won't hold up to questioning on Constitutional issues (there's no provision for the Legislative Branch to delegate their authority). But they all still need to be challenged and struck down.

Of course, DOGE might end-run and simply get rid of the gov't agency.


... Explosion at sperm bank. Nurses overcome.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Ron L. <=-

I don't remember her saying it but it sounds like something she'd say.

This reminds me of a proposal that someone had a while ago:
Make is required that every third year, Congress is restricted in passing any new laws can, for that third year, only REMOVE old laws that are no longer needed.

Basically forcing the Bureaucracy to clean up old, but burdonsome laws from the books.


... 74% of all statistics are made up on the spot
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A48 (Windows/32)
* Origin: bbs.CabanaBar.net:11123 (1:142/999)

That was a reference to how the Dems in the Legislature were building

he

Bureaucracy. The Dems, when they had a majority, simply passed a law saying "<that gov't agency> has the power to make the rules on <topic>".

I get it. So that party is over now, but we're still stuck with all the

laws"

that were enacted during it's heyday.

Yes and no. Those "laws" are no longer considered valid or Constitutional
by the SCOTUS. If the agencies try to enforce them against someone who is smart enough to question them, the courts will not enforce any that they interpret to be in contradiction with the actual law.


* SLMR 2.1a * DalekDOS error: (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)