EPA is supposed to have a contigency plan for the oil spill

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Cypress wrote:

...... Regulations are rules that implement laws adopted by the legislature, and that pertain to the regulation of private industry, interstate commerce, or to private citizens. Since the regulations that tinfoil posted pertain to USEPA and how they conduct oversight and coordination with respect to private entities, like dischargers, polluters, and with other state, local, and national entities, it's not an administrative law.

I would have thought the title "Code of Federal Regulations" on the link would make that crystal clear. But, I guess not.

Obviously, it is YOU who has trouble comprehending what you are reading here.

No, I have no problem understanding a damn thing. Prissy posted a cut-n-paste definition of "regulation" which pretty much clarified what Yurt and myself said, and continued to act as though he made his point. A regulation is part of the law, the same way as the lines down the center of the highway are part of the road. Now you can act like a moron and argue the lines are not the road, but the lines are part of the road, there would be no lines without the road, just as there would be no regulations without the law. It's just an ignorant and silly argument, which unsurprisingly comes from an ignorant and silly poster.

You keep trying to split a hair and then re-interpret a statement that YOU yourself have echoed. Bottom line: legal precedent and a EXACT understanding of the law and how it's applied does NOT support your attempt to override it with your opinion and supposition. History is against you. Grow up and deal with it. Or why don't you call up Cornell University and lecture them with your brilliant legal insight!

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL so yes, the regulations I posted are the end result of the LAW.

They are, as Dixie put it, the lines on the road.

You dudes are morons, man, seriously. You think yopu've made some point. What is your point? That the EPA is not required to have a contigency plan or that the requirement is not the law, it's part of the law?

Seriously, dumbass, your argument could not be more stupid.

Way to show me who's boss!

LOL

Maybe this chuckling chowderhead should call up Cornell and grace them with his legal insight.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You keep trying to split a hair and then re-interpret a statement that YOU yourself have echoed. Bottom line: legal precedent and a EXACT understanding of the law and how it's applied does NOT support your attempt to override it with your opinion and supposition. History is against you. Grow up and deal with it. Or why don't you call up Cornell University and lecture them with your brilliant legal insight!

What the fuck did you even say here? It's like you want desperately to argue with me about something, but you really can't find anything to argue, so you somehow manipulate what I said into something completely distorted, then argue with that! What the fuck is wrong with you? It's the behavior I would expect from a total sociopath.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

no one here disputes that....what is disputed is you saying they are NOT law...they are in fact LAW...i guess you're too dense to even read your own link...what department deals with regulatations....administrative law

you, mott and nigel are confusing technical and term of art legal terms..."laws" are not the same as the "law"...apparently i must further instruct you guys because you've hit the stupid and stubborn wall...

administrative law



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regulatory+law

what is truly embarrassing is that this started because mott claimed the regulations are not "law"...then you and nigel ignorantly jump in and start talking about "laws"...i already said they are technically regulations, however, they are in fact law....administrative law and as mott agrees, they have the same legal authority as statutory law...

let me explain the technical terms so we can end this embarrassment for you guys

statutory law - codes from legislation

case law (or what what used to be called common law) - decisions in certain courts

administative law - regulations etc...

i truly hope you guys can just admit you're wrong or at least put your tail between your legs and don't respond

cypress, you're a fucking idiot

you don't even realize you keep speaking about "laws" vs. "regulations"...you're talking about technical terms of art and still confusing "law" with "laws"

i tried to educate you, but apparently you're such an idiot you can't be taught....read the above AGAIN and for the last time, find out what this means:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

since dumbpryss likes citing cornell law:

Administrative law

Definition
Branch of law governing the creation and operation of administrative agencies. Of special importance are the powers granted to administrative agencies, the substantive rules that such agencies make, and the legal relationships between such agencies, other government bodies, and the public at large.

Overview
Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both Federal and state). Such agencies are delegated power by Congress (or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature) to act as agents for the executive. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law

now, cypress ignorantly claims law can ONLY be created ONE WAY:

Laws are created by statutes that originate from legislative bills originally introduced by either the Senate or the Assembly.

any first year lawstudent will laugh in his face....why? because they are all taught COMMON LAW...what is that? case law....but cypress would have us believe that the only laws in this nation are those created by congress...this is why i tried to educate him as to statutory law, case or common law, and administrative law....here is one lawschool explaining the difference between statutory and regulatory law (OMG - a lawschool just called them both "law")

Law:
STATUTORY & REGULATORY LAW

http://www.library.ucsb.edu/subjects/law/statutes.pdf

cypress, nigel, mott....you've been served

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You keep trying to split a hair and then re-interpret a statement that YOU yourself have echoed. Bottom line: legal precedent and a EXACT understanding of the law and how it's applied does NOT support your attempt to override it with your opinion and supposition. History is against you. Grow up and deal with it. Or why don't you call up Cornell University and lecture them with your brilliant legal insight!

What the fuck did you even say here? It's like you want desperately to argue with me about something, but you really can't find anything to argue, so you somehow manipulate what I said into something completely distorted, then argue with that! What the fuck is wrong with you? It's the behavior I would expect from a total sociopath.

Your retention ability leaves much to be desired.

Pay attention, you babbling ditz! Go back and follow the chronology of posts...I pointed out that YOU made the same statement regarding law and regulation....the difference being YOU seem intent upon utilizing your personal belief and viewpoint to replace established legal precedent.

Cypress supplied information from Cornell University that essentially would shut the mouth of any rational person with an 8th of a brain who was expousing your assertions. I suggest you READ it and stop whistl'in Dixie.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your retention ability leaves much to be desired.

Pay attention, you babbling ditz! Go back and follow the chronology of posts...I pointed out that YOU made the same statement regarding law and regulation....the difference being YOU seem intent upon utilizing your personal belief and viewpoint to replace established legal precedent.

Cypress supplied information from Cornell University that essentially would shut the mouth of any rational person with an 8th of a brain who was expousing your assertions. I suggest you READ it and stop whistl'in Dixie.

What he posted says a regulation IS THE LAW! LMFAO! It proved ME and YURT correct and him WRONG! Yet he continued to proudly boast after posting it, as if he had proven us wrong, and you seem to think he did as well. I can't figure out which one of you are more retarded, I think it's neck and neck. I didn't interject my "opinion" on anything, only common sense and basic elementary education. A regulation is part of the law, you can't say a regulation is not the law, it is part of the law like the lines on the highway are part of the highway. This stupid argument has raged on for two pages, how much longer do we have to spend on it? I mean, really? THIS is the most important thing you two can find to post about????????

 

[Taichiliberal]

What he posted says a regulation IS THE LAW! LMFAO! It proved ME and YURT correct and him WRONG! Yet he continued to proudly boast after posting it, as if he had proven us wrong, and you seem to think he did as well. I can't figure out which one of you are more retarded, I think it's neck and neck. I didn't interject my "opinion" on anything, only common sense and basic elementary education. A regulation is part of the law, you can't say a regulation is not the law, it is part of the law like the lines on the highway are part of the highway. This stupid argument has raged on for two pages, how much longer do we have to spend on it? I mean, really? THIS is the most important thing you two can find to post about????????

Regulation comes AFTER THE LAW IS ESTABLISHED. Without the passing of a law, there is no regulation. A matter of fact, a matter of history All the idiocy you and and that numbskull Yurtle are railing about cannot change how this process unfolds.

If you go to court to contest a regulation, then the judge and jury must refer to the LAW that the regulation pertains to in order to make a ruling if that regulation is LEGAL.

Get it now, ditzy? Stop whistl'in Dixie and call Cornell Law and ask them to explain it to you if you don't, because quite frankly I'm tired of your proudly stubborn ignorance.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Regulation comes AFTER THE LAW IS ESTABLISHED. Without the passing of a law, there is no regulation. A matter of fact, a matter of history All the idiocy you and and that numbskull Yurtle are railing about cannot change how this process unfolds.

If you go to court to contest a regulation, then the judge and jury must refer to the LAW that the regulation pertains to in order to make a ruling if that regulation is LEGAL.

Get it now, ditzy? Stop whistl'in Dixie and call Cornell Law and ask them to explain it to you if you don't, because quite frankly I'm tired of your proudly stubborn ignorance.

explain to me what these three things mean:

1. statutory law

2. case law

3. administrative law

thanks

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You know how I know you're an idiot?

Cause he has a PhD from Cal Poly Tech instead of an Honorary GED from the State of Kentucky like you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Cause he has a PhD from Cal Poly Tech?

no he doesn't and btw

explain to me what these three things mean:

1. statutory law

2. case law

3. administrative law

thanks

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's just funny as hell how all of a fucking sudden, a regulation is just a suggestion that doesn't have to be followed because it isn't "the law" ....was it that way under Bush, or is this a special circumstance for just Democrat Liberals? Excuse me, I have some greedy capitalist pigs to call... need to inform them not to worry about following those pesky regulations regarding handling nuclear waste and hazardous materials, because it's not really the law, and they don't really have to obey those mere "suggestions!"

Now you're just making shit up Dixie, but you are good at that. No one said that Federal Regulations in the CFR were a suggestion. The CFR is not "The Law". "The Laws" are specified in exacting legal language in the U.S. Code, which specificaly prints the exact language of the law as written by the US Congress. The CFR are the regulations by which "The Laws" are administered and implemented and they have "The Force of Law." Yurt is just spliting pussy hairs and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

None of this even remotely related to the topic of discussion here about a National Contingency Plan (NCP) in that Tinhead didn't even have the foggiest fucking clue as to what he was talking about as I so obviously made clear in my first post. In fact, what Tinhead posted as a reference wasn't even part of the CFR, let alone the U.S. Code. What he posted was a PROPOSED revision to the Federal Registrar (CFR) that was never adopted by congress. So what he, Tinhead, was referencing was neither "The Law" or Regulation or "Administrative Law" if you prefer.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Jesus. I almost feel stupider reading the rightwing foot stomping on the thread.

I have this problem all the time with most rightwingers and psychos. I can only assume our merry band of wingnuts “imagined” what I meant or said; either that or their whole ideology of conservatism is defined simply by being in opposition to whatever a liberal says.

Our knuckledragging compadres apparently “imagined” that I said regulations don’t have the force of law behind them, and as such are not legally binding in and of themselves.

Dixie won’t find a single quote from me saying that. He just imagined I said it. I am fully knowledgeable and equipped to school Dixie on rule-making and regulation-making process. If I want to know about lawn mower repair, or forklift driving, I’ll be sure to ask Tinfoil or Dixie.

As an unsubstantial and inconsequential part of my original response, I correctly pointed out that the link was to a regulation….not to a “law”, as was asserted by the lawn mover repairman. Fascinating that our uninformed and irate wingnut friends latched onto that little factoid with such tenacity and rage.

Everything else I said pertaining to regulations, are the exact same things that the University of Cornell, the State Government of California say about regulations versus laws.

School is over, wingnuts.

Actually it wasn't even a link to a CFR that Tinhead posted. It was a link to a proposed revision to the NCP in the CFR that was never adopted by Congress. So it was neither "The Law" or "Regulation".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL so yes, the regulations I posted are the end result of the LAW.

They are, as Dixie put it, the lines on the road.

You dudes are morons, man, seriously. You think yopu've made some point. What is your point? That the EPA is not required to have a contigency plan or that the requirement is not the law, it's part of the law?

Seriously, dumbass, your argument could not be more stupid.

Way to show me who's boss!

LOL

Like I said, nit wit, you should have read the document first before you made a fool of your self. What you linked wasn't even a regulation but a "proposed revision" to the regulations that was never adopted by congress meaning it did not become a regulation and thus does not have the force of law. It also means your entire point is not only moot but completely wrong.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

explain to me what these three things mean:

1. statutory law

2. case law

3. administrative law

thanks

Who gives a rats ass? It's not what were discussing here. Try to stay on topic.

The topic here is that Tinhead accused the Obama administration of not having a required NCP in place where upon I stated, and you provided the evidence to support me with your link to the NCP in 40 CFR, that an NCP had been in place long before Obama had even became President.

What Tinhead referenced was a proposed rule change that was never adopted but he didn't know that. Why? Cause he didn't even take the fucking time to read the document. He just copied it from whatever right wing blog he was reading that was blowing smoke up his ass that there was no NCP in place.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Regulation comes AFTER THE LAW IS ESTABLISHED. Without the passing of a law, there is no regulation. A matter of fact, a matter of history All the idiocy you and and that numbskull Yurtle are railing about cannot change how this process unfolds.

Not always, sometimes regulation is covered in the context of the law itself, and sometimes regulation is authorized by the law, to another principal. In any event, a 'regulation' of a specific law, IS THE LAW! You can't divorce the two from each other for the sake of arguing a regulation is not a law, it is asinine, and Cornell confirms just that.

If you go to court to contest a regulation, then the judge and jury must refer to the LAW that the regulation pertains to in order to make a ruling if that regulation is LEGAL.

You can't go to court to contest a regulation, a regulation is the administrative law, you can contest the law. The LAW says municipalities can establish speed limits not to exceed 70 mph... a municipality passes a 'regulation' of the speed at 35 mph. Is it 'legal' to drive up to 70 mph in the municipality, or is the law violated when someone drives over 35 mph? The regulation is 35 mph, the law says up to 70 mph... is the regulation the law or not? Is this contestable in court?

Get it now, ditzy? Stop whistl'in Dixie and call Cornell Law and ask them to explain it to you if you don't, because quite frankly I'm tired of your proudly stubborn ignorance.

And I am tired of your ignorance as well, Chicky. Furthermore, I am bored with you inability to find something interesting to argue about. I understand you want to find me wrong on something so bad you can taste it, but this wasn't the thing. You come off sounding like an insane person, really! You start to actually make AssHat look rational! But if you are content with being seen that way, it's fine by me. I would personally stop trying to deliberately twist the words of others in order to form an argument, it makes you look desperate and in need of attention.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Not always, sometimes regulation is covered in the context of the law itself, and sometimes regulation is authorized by the law, to another principal. In any event, a 'regulation' of a specific law, IS THE LAW! You can't divorce the two from each other for the sake of arguing a regulation is not a law, it is asinine, and Cornell confirms just that.



You can't go to court to contest a regulation, a regulation is the administrative law, you can contest the law. The LAW says municipalities can establish speed limits not to exceed 70 mph... a municipality passes a 'regulation' of the speed at 35 mph. Is it 'legal' to drive up to 70 mph in the municipality, or is the law violated when someone drives over 35 mph? The regulation is 35 mph, the law says up to 70 mph... is the regulation the law or not? Is this contestable in court?



And I am tired of your ignorance as well, Chicky. Furthermore, I am bored with you inability to find something interesting to argue about. I understand you want to find me wrong on something so bad you can taste it, but this wasn't the thing. You come off sounding like an insane person, really! You start to actually make AssHat look rational! But if you are content with being seen that way, it's fine by me. I would personally stop trying to deliberately twist the words of others in order to form an argument, it makes you look desperate and in need of attention.

yes you can

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Regulation comes AFTER THE LAW IS ESTABLISHED. Without the passing of a law, there is no regulation. A matter of fact, a matter of history All the idiocy you and and that numbskull Yurtle are railing about cannot change how this process unfolds.

Dixie states:
Not always, sometimes regulation is covered in the context of the law itself, and sometimes regulation is authorized by the law, to another principal. In any event, a 'regulation' of a specific law, IS THE LAW! You can't divorce the two from each other for the sake of arguing a regulation is not a law, it is asinine, and Cornell confirms just that.

Wrong again....Regulation occurs after the law is established, as each individual state in the union can vary the regulations needed to meet the letter of the law. Yes, regulation is specific of a law...but it's POST establishment of said law. No one is trying to "divorce" the two, I and Cypress are merely pointing out the pattern of establishing both. It is YOU who is trying to essentially put the cart before the horse, as it were. The stating by Cornell does NOT support your convoluted logic.

Quote:
If you go to court to contest a regulation, then the judge and jury must refer to the LAW that the regulation pertains to in order to make a ruling if that regulation is LEGAL.

Dixie wrote:
You can't go to court to contest a regulation, a regulation is the administrative law, you can contest the law. The LAW says municipalities can establish speed limits not to exceed 70 mph... a municipality passes a 'regulation' of the speed at 35 mph. Is it 'legal' to drive up to 70 mph in the municipality, or is the law violated when someone drives over 35 mph? The regulation is 35 mph, the law says up to 70 mph... is the regulation the law or not? Is this contestable in court?

Varying of speed limits is determined by geography and traffic flow. If the state posts a sign saying the speed limit is 70mph, and various accidents are happening at that particular street/road/intersection/etc., then concerned citizens can protests how the State regulated that speed limit to create an unsafe environment. Remember, by your own admission, the law is UP TO 70MPH, and the REGULATION is determined by the State for particular streets. You just made my argument, Dix. Pity you're too stubborn to admit it.

Quote:
Get it now, ditzy? Stop whistl'in Dixie and call Cornell Law and ask them to explain it to you if you don't, because quite frankly I'm tired of your proudly stubborn ignorance.

Dixie wrote:
And I am tired of your ignorance as well, Chicky. Furthermore, I am bored with you inability to find something interesting to argue about. I understand you want to find me wrong on something so bad you can taste it, but this wasn't the thing. You come off sounding like an insane person, really! You start to actually make AssHat look rational! But if you are content with being seen that way, it's fine by me. I would personally stop trying to deliberately twist the words of others in order to form an argument, it makes you look desperate and in need of attention.

You can blow all the self aggrandizing smoke you want, Dixie old thing. See, your problem is that YOU cannot accept facts and the logic derived from them that contradict your personal set of beliefs. Therefore, you try to replace them with your supposition and conjecture. Once placed in print however, your assertions become apparent convolutions of logic.

So sputter and fume all you want, but as the chronology of the posts show, you're just whistl'in dixie.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Who gives a rats ass? It's not what were discussing here. Try to stay on topic.

The topic here is that Tinhead accused the Obama administration of not having a required NCP in place where upon I stated, and you provided the evidence to support me with your link to the NCP in 40 CFR, that an NCP had been in place long before Obama had even became President.

What Tinhead referenced was a proposed rule change that was never adopted but he didn't know that. Why? Cause he didn't even take the fucking time to read the document. He just copied it from whatever right wing blog he was reading that was blowing smoke up his ass that there was no NCP in place.

coward...

it doesn't matter because you know i am right...and it is in fact what we are discussing here

you are cypress are stupidly arguing that regulations are not law...both of you and then nigel....are arguing that regulations are not law

you guys are the biggest dumbfucks on the interwebs...it is exactly why you ran from my very simple 3 part question about

statutory (legislative) law

case (common) law

regulatory (administrative) law

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong again....Regulation occurs after the law is established, as each individual state in the union can vary the regulations needed to meet the letter of the law.

No, I am not wrong in stating that this is not always the case. I can go find countless examples where "the law" as passed by congress, requires no regulation at all, requires some state determined regulation, requires some federal government departmental regulation, or in some rare cases, external private sector regulation. This varies depending on the nature of the law itself, there is no cookie-cutter standard regarding regulation. In any and all cases, the parameters of the regulations are established by the law.

And NO Yurt, you can not bring litigation in court against a "regulation!" It would be akin to suing an inanimate object, it just can't be legally done. The regulation is a part of the law, and if you feel the regulation is unfair or unjust, you must challenge the law, that is all the court is charged with dealing in. They can find that the law unfairly allows regulation that it shouldn't, and they can alter or change that, but the litigation must be framed to challenge the law, not a regulation of it.