|
|
Has anyone received any communication from DALPA touting the success of the new blog format?
(Insert irony) |
Originally Posted by orvil
(Post 1519351)
So what's the deal with the bid results? Two days and nothing in any category?
CG |
Originally Posted by cgresq
(Post 1519355)
It's routed through healthcare.gov web site. :D Sorry, You teed that on up and I had to swing!:p
CG |
What is the new forum one of our APC brethren has started?
|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 1519425)
What is the new forum one of our APC brethren has started?
|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 1519425)
What is the new forum one of our APC brethren has started?
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1519126)
T,
The smiley face thingy means "This is a joke." Please enjoy, but do not take literally. Sometimes a joke is based on a wee bit O truth to add to the enjoyment. Scoop :) In this case my reply is also meant to be funny. OK, I will stick to my day job. :D I was tired.. sorry. Sometimes sleep drunk is worse than drunk drunk... |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1519182)
Gloopy,
I think we have reached a "You can't have your cake and eat it, too," moment. This whole discussion began when someone asked if a state law and federal law contradicted, which would prevail. I correctly stated that because of the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution and federal law take precedence over any conflicting state law. In my opinion it's got to be that way. Having one source of "chief law" is a whole lot better than having 50 sources. There just aren't enough indians then and it gets way too confusing. While it's understandable that you have a problem with the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems as though you have a problem with the overreach of the federal government and maybe even with having the Supreme Court being the final decision-maker as to which federal laws prevail. You are a big believer in the 9th and 10th Amendment. "If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Feds can't enforce it." But you, like most of us, also seem to believe that we all have these inalienable rights that have been placed in the Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. In fact, you complain that many of them are being ignored. Well, what if a state is ignoring one of the fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights? What if Nebraska passed a law that banned all Christians from practicing Christianity? What if Illinois had a law that said no one could have firearms? Or, even better, what if Florida passed a law that their EPA could regulate free speech in the name of lower carbon dioxide emissions? Guess what makes each of those laws unconstitutional? Overreach of the federal government. You see, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states have to follow any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. What's been going on for the last 100 years or so, is that the Supreme Court has been binding the states to individual parts of the Bill of Rights in a process called incorporation. It was done a few years ago when Chicago was forced to drop a long standing gun ban. (Mc Donald vs. Chicago) Now, the Second Amendment applies to all the states, just like a lot of the other fundamental rights. Not because of the Constitution says anything about it, but because the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. Judicial over-reach at it's finest. (And that's ok.:) ) So, I've got to ask you, which one is it? Do you want the inalienable rights to apply to all of the states and therefore all citizens. Or, do you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Do you agree with the Mc Donald decision? As to the original question (which law is supreme, state or federal) you said federal, and I agree...with some caveats. Simply put, there is more to it than just that. If it were just that simple, you could just pass a federal law eliminating the states entirely. Or a law that re-instituted slavery or mandated a religion or disarmed the citizens could pass 435/435 and 100/100, be signed by the pres and upheld 9/9 in the SCOTUS, even if it was a full on constitutional amendment with 50/50 states ratifying it but would instantly become invalid before the ink was dry because the whole thing is based on unalienable rights that can't be taken away by any level of government because they are not derived from or granted by government at any level. Likewise states have rights too and they didn't cease to exist when they joined the others. The source of all the very limited federal powers and laws, the Constitition, spells that out quite clearly and the 9th and 10th amendments are some of the mose clear and powerful, limiting laws civilization has ever seen. That's why those who thirst for more and more power have worked so hard to eliminate them by saying anything and everything is commerce clause or generl welfare clause. The whole Constitution is replaced with unlimited federal power on anything and everything you can say are either of those two things, which is, of course, anything. I agree federal law is supreme and the highest court the final arbiter, as long as its a valid law at that level to begin with. But trying to use the butterfly effect to say everything effects something across a state line eventually therefore its a commerce clause issue or it effects people in general on some level therefore its a general welfare issue makes a mockery of the very rule of law that grants federal power to begin with. That kind of interpretation merely provides a rubber stamp for any oligarchy-come-lately to do anything it wants and then sign itself off with impunity as long as it can install 5/9 in the court. |
I've been trying to figure out what the company's trying to wring out of us in 117 negotiations, at least from a domestic standpoint.
Could it be an increase in the minimum days on reserve? For example, I believe most domestic categories allow a minimum of 3 days on reserve. Will the company try to increase that? Possible up to a minimum block of 168 hours on? It would turn into a "system reserve" (or "SRT" as AF AMC guys would call it). Basically, the company would assign you some rotation they have no intention of having you fly. Then, once you're out in the system, they can do whatever they damn well please until they have to send you home for 30/168 rest. I'm just spitballing here to figure out where the company is trying to squeeze us. Thoughts? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1519456)
I've been trying to figure out what the company's trying to wring out of us in 117 negotiations, at least from a domestic standpoint.
Could it be an increase in the minimum days on reserve? For example, I believe most domestic categories allow a minimum of 3 days on reserve. Will the company try to increase that? Possible up to a minimum block of 168 hours on? It would turn into a "system reserve" (or "SRT" as AF AMC guys would call it). Basically, the company would assign you some rotation they have no intention of having you fly. Then, once you're out in the system, they can do whatever they damn well please until you need your 30/168 rest. I'm just spitballing here to figure out where the company is trying to squeeze us. Thoughts? The only other thing I can think of is mining more efficiency by redefining block time. Wheel spin up anyone? :eek: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands