Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Lack of Law in the FAA


Aviationluver
11-27-2017, 05:54 PM
Hello,

I've studied the law on my own for a few years. I've never gone to law school.

Based on what I've seen and heard in regards to the FAA, I have a lot of questions because it doesn't appear as if the FAA follows the law.

For example, due process. The FAA seems to "charge" people without evidence or due process. It appears that the initiation of some type of suspension or jeopardy action comes in the form of a letter which is usually an administrative order written by an FAA attorney and not a judge. I always thought judges issued orders and not attorneys.

It appears as if you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent.

Has anyone fought the FAA or any other administrations? If so, what course of action do you use?

Also, let's say the FAA accuses you of something and your employer places you on unpaid leave pending the outcome of the FAA actions. During that time, you are losing money. Has anyone sued the FAA for loss of income if the FAA prevents you working?

Just curious.


TommyDevito
11-27-2017, 06:19 PM
Hello,

I've studied the law on my own for a few years. I've never gone to law school.

Based on what I've seen and heard in regards to the FAA, I have a lot of questions because it doesn't appear as if the FAA follows the law.

For example, due process. The FAA seems to "charge" people without evidence or due process. It appears that the initiation of some type of suspension or jeopardy action comes in the form of a letter which is usually an administrative order written by an FAA attorney and not a judge. I always thought judges issued orders and not attorneys.

It appears as if you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent.

Has anyone fought the FAA or any other administrations? If so, what course of action do you use?

Also, let's say the FAA accuses you of something and your employer places you on unpaid leave pending the outcome of the FAA actions. During that time, you are losing money. Has anyone sued the FAA for loss of income if the FAA prevents you working?

Just curious.

Go study the difference between criminal law, civil law and administrative law. The FAA falls under administrative law as do many government agencies.

Once you understand the concept of administrative law then evaluate your questions to fit in the framework given. It will be much clearer.

Here is a start: Chapter 3 (http://www.fromcallingtocourtroom.net/chap3.htm)

rickair7777
11-27-2017, 07:08 PM
What he said.

The fundamental issue is that you have no "right" to fly. The framers didn't include that (for obvious reasons).

So you're being granted a privilege by the government, and they'll administer that as they see fit (limited only congressional interventions such as PBR).

If they kept you from your profession, you might have the makings of a successful lawsuit but you'd probably have to prove malice or at the very least intentional indifference. You're not going to win unless they knew or should have known that you were clean. If they have reason to doubt that, they're allowed to take their sweet bureaucratic time sorting it out.


Yoda2
11-27-2017, 09:14 PM
Hello,

I've studied the law on my own for a few years. I've never gone to law school.

Based on what I've seen and heard in regards to the FAA, I have a lot of questions because it doesn't appear as if the FAA follows the law.

For example, due process. The FAA seems to "charge" people without evidence or due process. It appears that the initiation of some type of suspension or jeopardy action comes in the form of a letter which is usually an administrative order written by an FAA attorney and not a judge. I always thought judges issued orders and not attorneys.

It appears as if you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent.

Has anyone fought the FAA or any other administrations? If so, what course of action do you use?

Also, let's say the FAA accuses you of something and your employer places you on unpaid leave pending the outcome of the FAA actions. During that time, you are losing money. Has anyone sued the FAA for loss of income if the FAA prevents you working?

Just curious.

Welcome to what's commonly referred to as the "fourth branch of government" The one they conveniently forgot to teach you about in school...

JamesNoBrakes
11-27-2017, 09:27 PM
Hello,

I've studied the law on my own for a few years. I've never gone to law school.

Based on what I've seen and heard in regards to the FAA, I have a lot of questions because it doesn't appear as if the FAA follows the law.

For example, due process. The FAA seems to "charge" people without evidence or due process. It appears that the initiation of some type of suspension or jeopardy action comes in the form of a letter which is usually an administrative order written by an FAA attorney and not a judge. I always thought judges issued orders and not attorneys.

It appears as if you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent.

Has anyone fought the FAA or any other administrations? If so, what course of action do you use?

Also, let's say the FAA accuses you of something and your employer places you on unpaid leave pending the outcome of the FAA actions. During that time, you are losing money. Has anyone sued the FAA for loss of income if the FAA prevents you working?

Just curious.

Like stated above, you need to get a grasp on the administrative law that the FAA operates under for starters.

You are "guilty until proven innocent" when the FAA administers an Emergency Suspension Order, which is different than a Suspension Order. The Emergency Order is issued to protect the public, because someone has done something so careless or reckless that their continued privilege is endangering the public. Often this stems from a situation where someone broke a slew of regulations, went out and had a bad accident that was the result of those regulatory violations, injuring or killing people, falsification, etc. Pretty serious stuff. In that case, the FAA still has to make a "case" that can be supported by evidence, but it is processed much faster and is usually a matter of days rather than weeks or months.

Otherwise, even regular "suspension orders" are "proposed" when sent to the airman, if you want to fight it, you can.

If you are going to do this, you best study the regulations, the NTSB law parts, the guidance that the inspectors and counsel uses to process these things. Most of the time, us inspectors just want to figure out how to fix the problems and ensure compliance in the future. That used to be by levying fines and suspensions, but now we are required to use compliance philosophy for airmen that are willing and violations that were inadvertent. Unfortunately, sometimes lawyers tell the airmen to not comply and stonewall everything, which means no communication until FAA legal sends a suspension notice. These days, that can usually be easily avoided except in the most egregious circumstances, but it cuts out lawyers, especially the ones that are all too willing to collect money from a client and not really help them in the situation (what I was referring to above). Most of the "aviation attorneys" I have encountered have been anything but, not understanding the regulations and processes. The information is all out there and if you use it, you can do the best thing for your client, but again, I almost never see this. Hopefully, if you are interested in it, you can do the research and become educated on it and be able to serve your client fairly. I am by no means advocating to anyone to not use a lawyer, just that seeing it from the other side, I can't say it's yielded any consistent good results, it usually seems to stem from a lack of understanding, either of aviation in general or the specific regulations. The last thing the opposing counsel wants is to learn about something that totally destroys the case while in court, usually the last thing they want is to even go to court, unless they are pretty damn sure they can win.

If you are unpaid leave pending something like you are discussing, either you "did" do it, or you "did not" do it. If you "did not" do it, you or your lawyer should tell the FAA investigators why you "did not" do it, so it can go away faster. If you "did" do it, you should work with counsel and the investigators to determine how to have it processed as fast as possible, compliance and positive safety attitude are taken into consideration in these cases, and again, very few go down the road of enforcement these days unless it was a willing/overt action to break the rules and not inadvertent, but assuming it was not inadvertent, fighting it when you "did it" is going to be drawn out, messy, possibly with a worse outcome, and most definitely more expensive for your lawyer-time. I'd assume this is what any decent lawyer wants from their client, to know what happened.

I hope you can do the best you can for your clients if this is the path you choose.

155mm
11-28-2017, 07:40 AM
I took a graduate Aviation Law class and the only thing I recall is that, "You have the right to remain silent".

SonicFlyer
11-28-2017, 02:10 PM
What he said.

The fundamental issue is that you have no "right" to fly. The framers didn't include that (for obvious reasons).Actually not true. The 9th and 10th Amendments pretty much recognize any rights the Constitution doesn't deny. So yes, we have a right to fly and pretty much almost anything else we want to do (without harming others). However the federal government ignores the Constitution and does whatever it wants such as restricting the right to fly and turning it in to a privilege.

rickair7777
11-28-2017, 02:43 PM
Actually not true. The 9th and 10th Amendments pretty much recognize any rights the Constitution doesn't deny. So yes, we have a right to fly and pretty much almost anything else we want to do (without harming others). However the federal government ignores the Constitution and does whatever it wants such as restricting the right to fly and turning it in to a privilege.

I'm speaking practically, not theoretically. Jet airliners would never exist in an anarchist society, too many things would go wrong before you progressed that far.

But I suspect most aviation regulation came about because people got hurt.

Bicycle rights were not protected in the constitution either, and they are barely regulated because they rarely hurt anyone (but the rider).

TommyDevito
11-28-2017, 03:11 PM
Actually not true. The 9th and 10th Amendments pretty much recognize any rights the Constitution doesn't deny. So yes, we have a right to fly and pretty much almost anything else we want to do (without harming others). However the federal government ignores the Constitution and does whatever it wants such as restricting the right to fly and turning it in to a privilege.

Interesting observation. Ludicrous, but interesting none the less.

So are you advocating the abolishment of the FAA? Do we turn over standards and certification to individual states, or do we just abolish all aviation standards?

USMCFLYR
11-28-2017, 04:28 PM
The constitution gives the right to travel - not the mode/method right?

JamesNoBrakes
11-28-2017, 04:39 PM
The constitution gives the right to travel - not the mode/method right?

That has been the interpretation by the Supreme Court and why driving is a privilege, not a right.

SonicFlyer
11-28-2017, 06:07 PM
The constitution gives the right to travel - not the mode/method right?
The Constitution doesn't give any rights. All rights are inherent and pre-date the Constitution.

The Constitution does however specifically guarantee some rights by specifically prohibiting the government from infringing on them.

SonicFlyer
11-28-2017, 06:08 PM
So are you advocating the abolishment of the FAA? Do we turn over standards and certification to individual states, or do we just abolish all aviation standards?
The FAA is unconstitutional.

And what is "ludicrous" is to think that standards cannot exist without government.

SonicFlyer
11-28-2017, 06:08 PM
Jet airliners would never exist in an anarchist society, too many things would go wrong before you progressed that far.Who said anything about anarchy?

TommyDevito
11-28-2017, 06:18 PM
The FAA is unconstitutional.

Right. Care to cite some references for that revelation?


And what is "ludicrous" is to think that standards cannot exist without government.

So just how in your little utopia would you regulate this aviation thing we are involved in?

tomgoodman
11-28-2017, 07:37 PM
This is the third poster who has recently asserted that FAA regulation is inherently unconstitutional...or at least the third username.
Further explanation of the Commerce Clause will probably do no good.

sailingfun
11-29-2017, 04:07 AM
Hello,

I've studied the law on my own for a few years. I've never gone to law school.

Based on what I've seen and heard in regards to the FAA, I have a lot of questions because it doesn't appear as if the FAA follows the law.

For example, due process. The FAA seems to "charge" people without evidence or due process. It appears that the initiation of some type of suspension or jeopardy action comes in the form of a letter which is usually an administrative order written by an FAA attorney and not a judge. I always thought judges issued orders and not attorneys.

It appears as if you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent.

Has anyone fought the FAA or any other administrations? If so, what course of action do you use?

Also, let's say the FAA accuses you of something and your employer places you on unpaid leave pending the outcome of the FAA actions. During that time, you are losing money. Has anyone sued the FAA for loss of income if the FAA prevents you working?

Just curious.

Sounds like you studied criminal law. What exactly does that have to do with the FAA?

rickair7777
11-29-2017, 05:52 AM
And what is "ludicrous" is to think that standards cannot exist without government.

Depends on the parties to the standards in question... lowest common denominator. Ours is too low. Any human civilization's LCD is probably too low. Unless you want try eugenics...

SonicFlyer
11-29-2017, 06:50 AM
This is the third poster who has recently asserted that FAA regulation is inherently unconstitutional...or at least the third username.
Further explanation of the Commerce Clause will probably do no good.

The Commerce Clause is not an expansive power delegated to the federal government. It is actually a lot more humble than people have construed it to be. The Commerce Clause, when it was written, was designed to "make commerce regular" in other words turning all of the states in to a free trade zone so that tariffs couldn't be imposed on people or goods going from Virginia to New Hampshire for instance.

The word "regulate" at the time meant "to make regular" although that meaning is lost today.

SonicFlyer
11-29-2017, 06:51 AM
Right. Care to cite some references for that revelation?

So just how in your little utopia would you regulate this aviation thing we are involved in?Article 1 Sec 8 coupled with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Although a legitimate argument could be made that flying falls under admiralty law.

Regardless though, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate travel in the way that it does.

TommyDevito
11-29-2017, 07:07 AM
Article 1 Sec 8 coupled with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Although a legitimate argument could be made that flying falls under admiralty law.

Regardless though, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate travel in the way that it does.

That's your interpretations, as flawed as they are.

So if the FAA is unconstitutional, as you allege, why hasn't this been taken up by the courts?

Surely your interpretation would stand up in a SC challenge, right?

galaxy flyer
11-29-2017, 07:09 AM
I might find some agreement with that position, philosophically, BUT we have to live in the REAL WORLD. What color is the sky in Sonic Flyer land?

GF

TommyDevito
11-29-2017, 07:15 AM
I might find some agreement with that position, philosophically, BUT we have to live in the REAL WORLD. What color is the sky in Sonic Flyer land?

GF

Exactly. This thread started out as the OP not fully understanding Administrative Law.

tomgoodman
11-29-2017, 10:42 AM
The Commerce Clause is not an expansive power delegated to the federal government. It is actually a lot more humble than people have construed it to be. The Commerce Clause, when it was written, was designed to "make commerce regular" in other words turning all of the states in to a free trade zone so that tariffs couldn't be imposed on people or goods going from Virginia to New Hampshire for instance.

The word "regulate" at the time meant "to make regular" although that meaning is lost today.

For better or worse, the “original intent” horse left the barn long ago, with the Supreme Court holding the door open.

Aviationluver
11-29-2017, 05:58 PM
Thanks for your responses. I tend to agree with SonicFlyer and disagree with Rick..7777.

It's my understanding that as humans we are given inalienable rights such as the right to travel. Aviation falls within traveling. Licensing, medicals, etc. are generally used for commercial endeavors because banks and insurance companies rule the world. You would present an insurance liability if you commercially flew an airplane without a licensed pilot (for example).

My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.

With that being said, no one has given me any examples of what past pilots have done in the past in regards to remedy, besides a lawsuit.

JohnBurke
11-29-2017, 06:46 PM
My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.


You have "studied law for several years" and this is your understanding?

Where is this "oath" that FAA personnel must "swear?" Is this secretly done on a stack of bibles, perhaps under a windsock at night, near an unlit runway?

Due process?

In those several years, you never learned what administrative law is? Do you not understand the regulation?

Do you not know the basis behind the FAA's authority, or mission?

Do you know what an act of congress is?

"Violations of oath?" Did you actually read that somewhere, or just make that up?

The FAA "makes things up arbitrarily?" Really? Do you have any idea of the extent of the rule making process? Have you never taken the time to comment on a notice of proposed rule making? Every one is published for public comment in the Federal Register, and routinely the FAA crafts regulatory changes largely on industry and individual input. In fact, when the final rule is published, it includes a thorough explanation of the purpose and reason behind the regulation, the input from all concerned parties, and the reasons that the regulation has been established in consideration of that input.

As for the issue of the FAA undertaking enforcement action, there is a clear process set up and spelled out by the Administrator regarding what is done and the steps taken to appeal it. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

If you're concerned with recouping income loss following FAA enforcement action, you can certain try; get a good attorney and have a lot of money. It's your right to tilt at windmills. Such efforts come with no guarantee.


With that being said, no one has given me any examples of what past pilots have done in the past in regards to remedy, besides a lawsuit.

I have been through the process twice in the past three decades; each time successfully. When I say successfully, that means I received letters from the FAA regional counsel stating that there was nothing to support the attempted administrative action, which would seem a vindication. The same letter went on to state that had I done what I was accused of doing, it would be a violation of the regulation, and accordingly, the letter of warning would be placed in my file for a period of two years. It's the Administrator's way of firing a shot across the bow, and using it to harm your career for 24 months at a time...and an extended period thereafter...and no, there's really not much one can do about it.

And as others have noted, it is a privilege. NOT a right. Your appeal for certificate action is to neither a civil court nor a criminal one, but to an Administrative Law Judge.

SonicFlyer
11-29-2017, 06:51 PM
That's your interpretations, as flawed as they are.Actually it's not flawed, it is historical. I've studied law and history as a serious hobby for about 10 years.


So if the FAA is unconstitutional, as you allege, why hasn't this been taken up by the courts?

Surely your interpretation would stand up in a SC challenge, right?No because since the late 1800s and early 1900s the lawyers in this country are (incorrectly) trained to base everything on precedent, or stare decisis as opposed to the actual meaning of the original written text (which is the proper way).

This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.

JohnBurke
11-29-2017, 06:58 PM
Actually it's not flawed, it is historical. I've studied law and history as a serious hobby for about 10 years.


And yet you know nothing about administrative law.


No because since the late 1800s and early 1900s the lawyers in this country are (incorrectly) trained to base everything on precedent, or stare decisis as opposed to the actual meaning of the original written text (which is the proper way).


Which is irrelevant here.

You know, of course, that there are three sources for understanding the regulation, correct? One is the regulation itself. Another is FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation (also given as legal opinions). Another, and perhaps the best for gaining a more indepth understanding of the meaning AND intent of the regulation, is the Federal Register Preamble to the publishing of the final rule when a regulation is made or changed.

While it's of interest and sometimes useful to review appeal cases of enforcement action, those are not binding on FAA action, nor do they dictate the outcome of subsequent enforcement action or appeal.

Sounds like you've been studying the wrong law, if you have questions regarding the FAA.


This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.

The supreme court certainly does review and revisit previous rulings, but that's irrelevant in this case.

You may be barking up the wrong tree.

galaxy flyer
11-29-2017, 07:22 PM
And, when the administrative appeals are finished, the next level of appeal is the US Court of Appeals where, for the most part, they die.

If the two “armchair lawyers” took one, just ONE, business law course; you two would not be displaying ignorance and arrogance here. Administrative Law is a pretty basic undergrade business course. Here’s a start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law

GF

SeamusTheHound
11-29-2017, 07:34 PM
What color is the sky in Sonic Flyer land?

GF

Why surely Sonic Flyer’s skies are criss-crossed with CHEMTRAILS, no doubt.


(Although the sneaky government continues to deny the chemtrail program, he’ll get to proving it after he abolishes the FAA.)

;-)

TommyDevito
11-30-2017, 04:50 AM
Actually it's not flawed, it is historical. I've studied law and history as a serious hobby for about 10 years.


Well, that changes everything! Wow, since "studying" law is your hobby that gives you credentials to speak on the subject as an authority! Have you considered contacting your state bar association and informing them you are now ready to sit for the bar exam? Or perhaps your local university will need a law Professor? I mean, after all, you have all this knowledge obtained from your "hobby".



No because since the late 1800s and early 1900s the lawyers in this country are (incorrectly) trained to base everything on precedent, or stare decisis as opposed to the actual meaning of the original written text (which is the proper way).

This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.

Just because you supposedly study law as a "hobby" doesn't make you anything resembling a law expert. That paragraph above speaks volumes of your "study", such as you are clueless.

Ever consider taking up Gynecology as a hobby?

GogglesPisano
11-30-2017, 06:38 AM
Sonic lives in a libertarian utopia. He thinks there should be no licensing of professionals.

I'd hate to hear his thoughts on the FDA.

Freeedom!!!!!

MedicalTruth
11-30-2017, 07:01 AM
What gives the FAA the authority to deny a medical based on a Traffic stop?

In a court of law, you can challenge a Police Officer, Probable cause, lab results.. etc.

But in the eyes of the FAA, the Officer, lab results... etc, are the Judge, Jury and Executioner, until you can prove otherwise. Often costing thousands and more in lost income.

This needs to change.

Sure, I can understand enforcement action once in the cockpit. But on your down time? The FAA has no authority.

MedicalTruth
11-30-2017, 07:27 AM
Keep in mind, section 18 has z available.

Given all the recent media coverage,

18z - Have you ever been arrested/convicted for, or accused of sexual harassment/assault (by 2 or more people) in your lifetime? If yes, please provide a detailed letter.

(now the AME has to be trained in recognizing sexual predators vs jealous partners)

Welcome to the slippery slope.

rickair7777
11-30-2017, 12:29 PM
Sonic lives in a libertarian utopia. He thinks there should be no licensing of professionals.

I'd hate to hear his thoughts on the FDA.

Freeedom!!!!!

Many libertarian ideals might work in our society. But society never would have gotten to where it is by applying those ideals, and probably wouldn't last very long if we tried it now.

That said, I did vote for my first libertarian last year...

tomgoodman
11-30-2017, 12:37 PM
I think he accidentally read about the Napoleonic Code, which we don’t use in the USA (except Louisiana sort of pretends to). Our system (English Common Law) is much different, and as others have pointed out, Administrative Law is something else entirely. Oui? ⚜️

SonicFlyer
11-30-2017, 06:26 PM
And yet you know nothing about administrative law.
Actually all I need to know is that it is beneath or subservient to the Constitution (or supposed to be at least).

SonicFlyer
11-30-2017, 06:29 PM
Sonic lives in a libertarian utopia. He thinks there should be no licensing of professionals. Certification and licensing are two different things.




I'd hate to hear his thoughts on the FDA.You mean the organization that isn't allowed to exist per the Constitution? The organization which jails people for selling raw milk? The organization that jails people for making their own soap? The organization the holds armed raids on produce vendors? You mean the organization that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year because they deny proven drugs for use?

Yeah, those guys...

SonicFlyer
11-30-2017, 06:30 PM
Well, that changes everything! Wow, since "studying" law is your hobby that gives you credentials to speak on the subject as an authority! Have you considered contacting your state bar association and informing them you are now ready to sit for the bar exam? Or perhaps your local university will need a law Professor? I mean, after all, you have all this knowledge obtained from your "hobby".




Just because you supposedly study law as a "hobby" doesn't make you anything resembling a law expert. That paragraph above speaks volumes of your "study", such as you are clueless.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

galaxy flyer
11-30-2017, 06:35 PM
Sonic Flyer,

You’ll need to present your constitutional theories to the SCOTUS and slap down the administrative law process. While I’m somewhat sympathetic, in the real world, your ideas, without an execution plan, are merely hallucinations.

GF

GogglesPisano
11-30-2017, 06:49 PM
Certification and licensing are two different things.




You mean the organization that isn't allowed to exist per the Constitution? The organization which jails people for selling raw milk? The organization that jails people for making their own soap? The organization the holds armed raids on produce vendors? You mean the organization that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year because they deny proven drugs for use?

Yeah, those guys...

Should it be fixed or scrapped altogether? What would a true libertarian say?

JamesNoBrakes
11-30-2017, 07:34 PM
Certification and licensing are two different things.




You mean the organization that isn't allowed to exist per the Constitution? The organization which jails people for selling raw milk? The organization that jails people for making their own soap? The organization the holds armed raids on produce vendors? You mean the organization that kills hundreds of thousands of people each year because they deny proven drugs for use?

Yeah, those guys...
I made my own soap and I didn’t go to jail.

JohnBurke
11-30-2017, 08:37 PM
This message is hidden because SonicFlyer is on your ignore list.

Enough of this joker. His syntax and rhetoric sound very much like the recently booted "medicaltruth," who is also on the ignore list. The signal to noise ratio has improved.

tomgoodman
11-30-2017, 09:38 PM
Enough of this joker. His syntax and rhetoric sound very much like the recently booted "medicaltruth," who is also on the ignore list. The signal to noise ratio has improved.

Not to mention the previously banned “NMuir”....

GogglesPisano
11-30-2017, 09:40 PM
Not to mention the previously banned “NMuir”....

I remember that knucklehead. Same grammatical style.

SonicFlyer
12-01-2017, 06:17 AM
I made my own soap and I didn’t go to jail.

Only because they don't know about it:

https://www.soapqueen.com/business/a-surprise-visit-from-the-fda/

SonicFlyer
12-01-2017, 06:18 AM
Should it be fixed or scrapped altogether? What would a true libertarian say?According to the Constitution the FDA shouldn't exist at all. On a libertarian policy level, it is a bad idea to regulate and centralize power.

TommyDevito
12-01-2017, 06:37 AM
According to the Constitution the FDA shouldn't exist at all. On a libertarian policy level, it is a bad idea to regulate and centralize power.

That's according to your interpretation of the constitution. And your interpretation is now where near the interpretation of legal scholars.

You should take up gynecology as a hobby, way more fun.

GogglesPisano
12-01-2017, 09:07 AM
According to the Constitution the FDA shouldn't exist at all. On a libertarian policy level, it is a bad idea to regulate and centralize power.

Okay so in your utopia if you need to buy prescription drugs for your kids you'll perform the requisite hours of research to ensure that the drugs are safe and the company reputable. You'll trust that the R&D people didn't follow the same methods that led to Thalidomide.

And when you buy groceries you'll do another few hours of research to make sure the ingredients are safe -- as determined by some corporate-funded lab that gives their "seal of approval." (Because that trust has worked so well in the past.)

The list goes on and on.

JohnBurke
12-01-2017, 10:14 AM
Is this still an aviation web board?

METO Guido
12-01-2017, 11:39 AM
Is this still an aviation web board?
Yes and no. But where did anyone get jailed for non-compliant soap selling? Don't want to be re-gifting lavender & tea, craft soap bars only to find out my neighbor's cousin has 1st degree burns next Christmas. Administrative law serves an important purpose in commercial enterprise, including ours of course.

galaxy flyer
12-01-2017, 11:53 AM
“Earth calling Sonic Flyer, come in Sonic Flyer”.

You have, shall we say, interesting view of how the USG works. I’d suggest violating some administrative law and following thru the process to disassemble a 100 years of it. Say, buzz the White House at 100’, and tell the FSDO he has no authority to do an emergency revocation. Should provide an exciting thread here.

GF

JohnBurke
12-01-2017, 01:15 PM
Yes and no. But where did anyone get jailed for non-compliant soap selling? Don't want to be re-gifting lavender & tea, craft soap bars only to find out my neighbor's cousin has 1st degree burns next Christmas. Administrative law serves an important purpose in commercial enterprise, including ours of course.

Irrelevant. Also nothing to do with theread, or aviation, or aviation law or regulation.

METO Guido
12-01-2017, 01:22 PM
Irrelevant. Also nothing to do with theread, or aviation, or aviation law or regulation.
I use Dial. Try it.

tomgoodman
12-01-2017, 01:29 PM
Is this still an aviation web board?

Mae West said: “I used to be pure as snow, but...I drifted.”

So did this thread. 🤡

Bahamasflyer
12-01-2017, 01:56 PM
“Earth calling Sonic Flyer, come in Sonic Flyer”.

You have, shall we say, interesting view of how the USG works. I’d suggest violating some administrative law and following thru the process to disassemble a 100 years of it. Say, buzz the White House at 100’, and tell the FSDO he has no authority to do an emergency revocation. Should provide an exciting thread here.

GF

If he's LUCKY, he'll be alive to see the FAA give him an emergency revocation!

galaxy flyer
12-01-2017, 03:31 PM
Well, considering the ever alert, reputed defense systems let a Cessna 150 LAND on the WH grounds, I’m not convinced the system exists or would actually be used.

GF

JohnBurke
12-01-2017, 06:55 PM
This message is hidden because METO Guido is on your ignore list.


Another appropriate adjustment. And relevant.

SonicFlyer
12-01-2017, 09:49 PM
Okay so in your utopia if you need to buy prescription drugs for your kids you'll perform the requisite hours of research to ensure that the drugs are safe and the company reputable. You'll trust that the R&D people didn't follow the same methods that led to Thalidomide. First off people should be allowed to take risk if they wish to. Secondly, for those that want to be prudent and accept little to no risk there would be certification organizations that would show things as safe. Think ISO or the UL certifications. Government isn't needed to deem things "safe."

SonicFlyer
12-01-2017, 09:50 PM
That's according to your interpretation of the constitution. Actually untrue... it is the original meaning of the Constitution as it was written. Anyone who studies how the document came together understands this.

TommyDevito
12-02-2017, 05:01 AM
Actually untrue... it is the original meaning of the Constitution as it was written. Anyone who studies how the document came together understands this.

No, that's the way you see it. And your opinion isn't shared by constitutional scholars and legal professionals.

tomgoodman
12-02-2017, 07:12 AM
No, that's the way you see it. And your opinion isn't shared by constitutional scholars and legal professionals.

Nor is it shared by hiring officials at major airlines, who are experts at screening out nonconformists and argumentative applicants. A few might slip through, of course, if they are good actors.

METO Guido
12-02-2017, 09:43 AM
This message appears on METO's "who the f died & left you in charge" list.

For a self proclaimed, disinterested third party, sure managed to get that stick jammed up there pretty high & tight.

SonicFlyer
12-02-2017, 08:44 PM
No, that's the way you see it. And your opinion isn't shared by constitutional scholars and legal professionals.Incorrect again. There are many legal scholars who understand this. Start reading Raoul Berger from Harvard.

WhistlePig
12-03-2017, 04:04 AM
Incorrect again. There are many legal scholars who understand this. Start reading Raoul Berger from Harvard.

Considering he's been dead for 17 years and was completely fine with segregation from his "originalist" Constitutional interpretation point of view, I'll pass.

The Constitution is a pretty good framework on which to hang a government, but it's not perfect, and it is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with the infinite number of transactions that occur daily in America.

TommyDevito
12-03-2017, 05:06 AM
Incorrect again. There are many legal scholars who understand this. Start reading Raoul Berger from Harvard.

So you only cherry pick a select few out of the mainstream that you feel meets your view?

You and they are in a very small minority and legally speaking don't have a position or a clue.

galaxy flyer
12-03-2017, 11:36 AM
it is not the appropriate mechanism to deal with the infinite number of transactions that occur daily in America.

One could argue the consenting adults involved can decide for themselves on how make those infinite transactions are dealt with.

GF

SonicFlyer
12-03-2017, 04:39 PM
Considering he's been dead for 17 years and was completely fine with segregation from his "originalist" Constitutional interpretation point of view, I'll pass.
FAIL:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

SonicFlyer
12-03-2017, 04:40 PM
You and they are in a very small minority So were the founders. Being in the minority or majority has nothing to do with being "correct"

TommyDevito
12-03-2017, 04:51 PM
So were the founders. Being in the minority or majority has nothing to do with being "correct"

Tell ya what, put your pilot certificates and your medical in the shredder. When your company ask you to produce your medical tell them how unconstitutional the FAA is and you don't have to comply, because, you know, you study law as a hobby and you know better.

Then when the FAA Inspector comes on your aircraft inform him he works for an unconstitutional agency and you don't have to comply.

Oh, and when it's time for your next PC just tell the company it's not needed because, in your opinion, the FAA is unconstitutional.

Let us know how all that works out for you.

WhistlePig
12-08-2017, 11:04 AM
FAIL:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

That's not what that means

WhistlePig
12-08-2017, 11:09 AM
One could argue the consenting adults involved can decide for themselves on how make those infinite transactions are dealt with.

GF

Until your transaction infringes on a third-party, sure. However, "Whoopise" won't cut it when you put your flitfly through someones living room. Your rights end at the tip of my nose ... or something like that.

galaxy flyer
12-08-2017, 07:15 PM
Until your transaction infringes on a third-party, sure. However, "Whoopise" won't cut it when you put your flitfly through someones living room. Your rights end at the tip of my nose ... or something like that.

I don’t disagree in the least, everyone must bear the consequences of their decisions and how it affects third parties.

GF



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1