Private vs. Common carriage
01-04-2018, 03:55 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,588
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Right, because Sally deserves to die when she books a flight, because she knows nothing about aviation and just wants to get from point A to point B. The FAA doesn't care much if you go and crash yourself into a mountain. They care if you are taking the public down with you and they have a mandate from congress to protect the flying public, which includes your mother, children, etc.
The government is not a good protector and a thinking man understands why.
Certification is a much better way of making things safe than is regulation. Hint, you don't need the government to make things safer.
01-04-2018, 04:13 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Which happens to be unconstitutional.
Congress enacted the laws contained within Title 49, subtitle VII. These laws were passed by congress and signed into law by the President, all in accordance of the US Constitution. From these laws the regulations were drafted that became Title 14 Aeronautics and Space. These regulations (Administrative Law) are how the federal laws are administered by the respective Presidential Cabinet appointed Secretary (In this case, the Secretary of Transportation), again in accordance with the Constitution.
01-04-2018, 04:18 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
And that mandate is unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
The government is not a good protector and a thinking man understands why.
Certification is a much better way of making things safe than is regulation. Hint, you don't need the government to make things safer.
Certification is a much better way of making things safe than is regulation. Hint, you don't need the government to make things safer.
01-04-2018, 07:13 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,588
Originally Posted by TommyDevito
Your "hobby" in interpreting law needs a lot of work. Apparently you didn't bother with High School Civics courses.
Congress enacted the laws contained within Title 49, subtitle VII. These laws were passed by congress and signed into law by the President, all in accordance of the US Constitution. From these laws the regulations were drafted that became Title 14 Aeronautics and Space. These regulations (Administrative Law) are how the federal laws are administered by the respective Presidential Cabinet appointed Secretary (In this case, the Secretary of Transportation), again in accordance with the Constitution.
Congress enacted the laws contained within Title 49, subtitle VII. These laws were passed by congress and signed into law by the President, all in accordance of the US Constitution. From these laws the regulations were drafted that became Title 14 Aeronautics and Space. These regulations (Administrative Law) are how the federal laws are administered by the respective Presidential Cabinet appointed Secretary (In this case, the Secretary of Transportation), again in accordance with the Constitution.
01-04-2018, 09:22 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Except you missed the part where the Constitution doesn't authorize any of it. Just because Congress passes a law and the President signs it doesn't make that law Constitutional.
Anyone can argue that something should be found unconstitutional, but the burden of proof lies upon them, and a grant of certiorari, let alone a successful challenge, is unlikely.
01-05-2018, 04:56 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,588
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
Such laws, passed and signed, always carry the presumption of Constitutionality until such time as the Supreme Court says otherwise.
01-05-2018, 04:58 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
Such laws, passed and signed, always carry the presumption of Constitutionality until such time as the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Anyone can argue that something should be found unconstitutional, but the burden of proof lies upon them, and a grant of certiorari, let alone a successful challenge, is unlikely.
Anyone can argue that something should be found unconstitutional, but the burden of proof lies upon them, and a grant of certiorari, let alone a successful challenge, is unlikely.
01-05-2018, 05:01 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
That's actually not correct, and it assumes that Congress is infallible (ha). And the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and what is not Constitutional.
01-05-2018, 12:37 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,978
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
That's actually not correct, and it assumes that Congress is infallible (ha). And the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and what is not Constitutional.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SWAFO41
Corporate
23
10-04-2006 05:14 PM
