Saturday March 8, 2014
Jump to content
I've been screaming for years that federal bureaus and agencies go beyond their authority when they write rules and regulations that become law. Ordinary citizens — like you me — should not be harassed by illegally written laws while we are in the forest, or in our homes, or in our businesses.
My belief — as stated by the Constitution — is that only Congress has the authority to write laws, and that a bureau or agency has no authority except in the enforcement of laws AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS!
The Supreme Court is considering a case which will touch on that issue, a case with the potential of driving the first wedge in against the massive abuse of power by the Administrative Branch.
So what's going on?
The Supreme Court will ask and answer the question whether or not President Obama — and the EPA under his guidance — is out of line in making rules regarding certain aspects of environmental pollution, namely greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) which are not mentioned in any bill passed by Congress.
However, under President Obama the EPA adopted an expansive interpretation of the Clean Air Act to increase its regulatory authority over a wider range of greenhouses gas emitters such as factories and power plants.
What brings the question before the court is the fact that Congress has refused to pass climate legislation, but the President and the EPA are acting as though it has passed one by creating regulations, thereby acting on an authority which simply does not exist.
If SCOTUS acts to scrap the new EPA rules it will be the thin end of the wedge, setting a precedent for there to be an absolute need for any rule or regulation passed by a bureau or agency to be rooted in legislative law. That is what the Constitution intended, and it is the only way a democracy can function. Otherwise we have a King, not a President.
The Question Is....
How do you think the court will rule?
This is going to stretch you just a bit. We have a tendency to grin, or maybe even applaud, when someone quotes Shakespeare when he has Henry VI say, "Kill all the lawyers!" It's a natural reaction to a time when there is just too much litigation taking place.
But when it comes to reality...?
That's a little different, isn't it?
I just read a CNN report that said something I didn't know, and that I'll bet you didn't know either: Prominent lawyers keep turning up dead — by their own hand.
It has become a veritable epidemic. Lawyers are now the fourth most likely group in the nation to commit suicide.
In 2004, In Oklahoma during 2004, it was one a month. South Carolina had six lawyer suicides from January 2007 to July 2008. Kentucky has had 15 lawyer suicides in the last 3 years.
Those are BIG numbers.
The problem is so bad that eight state bar associations are very concerned. California, Montana, Iowa, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina have added added a "mental health" component to mandatory continuing education for lawyers.
The problem seems to be traceable in large part to depression.
That's it. I'll just leave it right there and let you make whatever comment you'd like to make.
As everyone knows, I read a lot of history, and it never failed to amaze me for a while how people allowed themselves to be led straight into a catastrophe. Then I did a little checking, and found out almost the same things you just talked about. It was the rich and powerful who were pushing the buttons. They made money out of what was going on. The ordinary person stood to gain nothing, and often was worse off after the smoke cleared. But over and over again the cycle continued.
It's not hard to see what drives it here in Arizona: Population growth mens more tax money, but there's a point at which that is no longer true, and one look at what's happening RIGHT NOW is proof of that. It costs more to bring someone in than we get back from him or her in taxes. And we are out of water futures. There is no more water, period!
What AZLEG has done is to forestall the inevitable move to either make the future pay for the future, or quit growing. They have enabled the growth, but have cut the ability of towns and counties to provide the needed services for that growth.
For the moment, Payson is safe, but only because of the forethought that occurred in the past. With no way to handle growth beyond the predictable limits of growth, the only way the act is to slam the door shut when the time comes.
Well, it would have had to be done anyway; this just makes "when the time comes" a little sooner.
Pat, I hate it when I hit the wrong button, but it happens, doesn't it? The only thing we can do is live with it.
I'm sure you know this, but any program worthy of the name responds to an immediate Command - z, where you hold down the Command key and press the Z key. If you haven;t tried it, give it a shot. Open a file, enter some text, and hit the delete key, which will delete what you typed. Then press Command-z to bring it all back. I'm sure that will work, and it works at a lot of other times too.
I agree with both of you.
I will be bluntly honest and say that I haven't got a clue what is going on in PUSD. Too secretive. Too many executive sessions a-la "we don't want to tell you what's really going on." How can we relate to a school district that feeds us smoke and mirrors year after year? In order to feel as thought you should help someone you at least have to know who he is.
Add that to the obviously corrupt federal interference in education and the anti-public education stance of the legislature here in Arizona and I wouldn't voluntarily pay a nickel for anything in any school in the state. Period!
Bernice, don't have an answer to your question about taxing.
As for impact fees, I agree with both you and Pat. The changes were made to wrongly benefit business interests. The requirements to do so much new record keeping is nothing less than harassment of small towns and counties by a business driven legislature. The purpose is obvious.
Impact fees are a fair and equitable method of placing the cost of supplying new homes with those things which the people already in an area have paid for for existing homes. It is unfair and improper to raise the taxes on existing homes to bring water — for example — to new homes. The builders and developers know that, but they don't care. They just want to come in, build, and run off with their profits. Most of the large developers take their money and go back home to California; they could not care less what happens to us.
And to answer the comments of anyone who says that impact fees are anti-growth, the correct answer to that is that growth must pay for itself. Think of what Payson's future would be right now if it were not for Blue Ridge. And ask yourself if Blue Ridge could have happened with the years of impact fees needed to make it happen?
This is an extremely one-sided piece of developer-enriching legislation. It is grab-the-money-and-run legislation which should be immediately addressed by the Arizona league of towns and cities by starting a initiative drive in self defense. Otherwise, what will happen is growth in areas that cannot sustain that growth.
When you think about Arizona, never forget one thing: The limit to growth here is set by nature; there is only so much water. What is frightening obvious is that we have already reached the absolute limits of growth in most areas. Every new home in an area without a guaranteed water supply to cover the new residents is one more step toward an inevitable disaster.
Look around you! Look at the small unincorporated towns around the Rim. Do you see how many of them are at the end of their ropes because of water problems? You'd have to be blind not to see what is happening. Those places are ALREADY over developed because they lacked a town council to place impact fees on new construction.
Tell me this: Where is the solution for those small housing areas? Where do they get new water for all those new homes? Do you see a solution? Really? Good! Tell me what it is.
John, I too have listened very carefully to the arguments of the "no death penalty" people. In the end, though, I reject them because they are almost always based on two premises which carry no weight with me.
One is the argument that there is nothing worse that executing an innocent person, and that since our system is often rigged against an accused we should never execute anyone. I reject that argument because I feel it would be far better to take a hard look at those who break the law in the name of the law, and stick them behind bars where they belong. What could be worse than unfairly convicting someone of a crime?
The other argument I reject is the one that points to the Ten Commandments, which I feel are directed at us as individuals, not at the government.
You are right about Utah, by the way. Just before I arrived there in the early 60's someone was executed by firing squad.
Pat, I don't know how to define "humane" in this instance. I guess we mean "with as little pain, as little fanfare, and as little induced fear as possible."
In the long run I agree with executions. I think the old thinking on the subject — a life for a life — is correct. No one should be able to deliberately take a human life without facing the ultimate penalty. It is just not right. It cheapens the value of a human life to say that it is worth just seven or eight years, which is what the average first degree murder case ends up being. If you deliberately kill someone you should have to do it knowing that you are killing yourself.
As to all the fooforah about execution chemicals, I do not understand why we have to buy them overseas. Just make them here. We make everything else — or we dang sure would if it were left up to me, but then that's another subject, isn't it?
You know something? It wouldn't surprise me at all to find some crook actually going to an ER for treatment. They do things like that all the time, things that actually alert the police to what they have done, or are going to do.
I see that i didn't quite pose that question correctly.
How would you feel if someone "prematurely...and using of false...documents" came along and foreclosed on YOUR house , taking YOUR original fee payment, all the equity YOU had in it and the taxes and interest YOU paid for ten years?
And then gave you a thousand bucks, patted you and your head, and told you to go away?
PUSD finds itself a neat one million dollars short in next year's school budget.
Without going into the details of how the federal and state governments have managed to get us into this predicament....
Would you vote for a school bond issue to cover the shortage?
As you already know by now, a new Arizona state law makes it virtually impossible for cities and counties to place impact fees on new construction. For one thing, the cost of accounting for those fees could outweigh the return. In addition, the reasons for impact fees are severely restricted, scrapping some of the former reasons.
It's obvious that the money formerly spent out of impact fees is still going to have to be spent, and that someone in Payson is going to have to come up with that money, making this subject is too complex for a single question, so....
The Questions Are....
What is the real purpose of the law?
Last login: Tuesday, February 25, 2014