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

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol:

you bring the suit against the governmental body enforcing the regulation dixie.....come on dude....you have the law thing figured out....whereas cypress, mott, nigel are in the dark...

if a developer wants to develop land in an area where a local/county/state/federal regulatory agency is opposed to such development....where does the developer take his claim to get redress?

think CCC

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...-yMZX6pcIKAAAAqgQFT9A6K-A&fp=927f32381456711a
 
Yurt said:
:lol:

you bring the suit against the governmental body enforcing the regulation dixie.....come on dude....you have the law thing figured out....whereas cypress, mott, nigel are in the dark...

if a developer wants to develop land in an area where a local/county/state/federal regulatory agency is opposed to such development....where does the developer take his claim to get redress?

think CCC

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...-yMZX6pcIKAAAAqgQFT9A6K-A&fp=927f32381456711a
Click to expand...

This is so ridiculous it isn't worth arguing about. Legal case law must deal with the code of law, that is the judicial system in America. If you can bring a case before the court contesting a law which enables a regulation, then you may be able to change a regulation through changing the law it is based on. You can't litigate a regulatory portion of a law without litigating the law itself, it's just not possible to do. This gets real dicey because many laws have no 'regulation' element per say, or the 'regulations' are self-contained in the law itself. In a situation like the one you present, the case would be brought against the agency, but the challenge would be to the law and how it is interpreted to give the regulatory authority to the agency, the law is what is challenged, not the specific regulation.
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...

Coward? You can't even address the topic were discussing cause you know that Tinhead is factually wrong so you want to split pussy hairs. Now that's what I call the pot calling the kettle black.

Was Tinhead right or wrong about the NCP?
 
Yurt, your obsession with hair-splitting, inconsequential, and insignificant little factoids in hilarious.

Laws are not the same thing as regulations. That's a simple fact, that has and can be verified from the Federal Government, the State Government of California, and the Cornell University library - as demonstrated routinely on this thread.

No one ever said that regulations don't have the force of law behind them, and as such require the regulated community to comply with them. I think you're imagining that somebody said that.

Would you also please foot stomping about adminstrative law. I think the educated people on the thread understand at some level that while executive agencies are given quasi-legislative powers to promulgate regulations, there are limits placed on them. Nobody wants an executive agency to have unfettered and unchecked powers to develop regulations. Adminstrative law, as I understand it, is the code that sets the boundaries, requirements, and limits on how public agencies can carry out their quasi-legislative and rule-making authorities. Requiring public notification, public input, internal administrative procedures, and limits on the rule making process. I ain't no expert on it, but I know that this little diversion of yours not what we were talking about.

That has nothing to do with the thread, and its unfathomable why you are so obsessed with spinning and squawking about adminstrative law.

From tinfoils own link:

EPA is promulgating revisions to the Oil Pollution Contingency plan, under the authority of the Clean Water Act section 311(d).
Click to expand...

The Federal Clean Water Act is Statutory Law....not administrative law. So can you please just stop foot stomping, spinning, and braying about something that has nothing to do with the thread.

The link was to a regulation. And, if Mott is right, (and totally good catch by him) it was to a proposed regulation. Which doesn't have the force of law behind it. So Mott is right, Tinfoil looked foolish when he brayed about a "law" EPA is required to follow, when in fact what he posted was a proposed regulation that didn't even have the force of law behind it. I don't know if if the regulation was ever formally promulgated, but in retrospect with what we know now, Tinfoil - as per usual - totally bungled and misinterpreted what he posted. He usually does when he tries to post anything of a technical or scientific nature. It's always a barrel of fun observe the follies of various GEDers.
 
Last edited:
No one ever said that regulations don't have the force of law behind them, and as such require the regulated community to comply with them. I think you're imagining that somebody said that.
Click to expand...

Read my signature, that was certainly the inference which was made, and the reason this debate ensued. It was a ridiculous and silly argument to make, but it's even sillier and more ridiculous to now claim that argument was never made!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I would suggest that you do so. First, this isn't the law. It's the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you wish to review the laws on this topic I'd suggest you go reference the appropriate U.S. Code.

Second, I have read this (dear lord save me) and I have written EPCRA contingency plans for hazardous waste facilities where I've managed complicance and thirdly, thank you for validating my point to Tinhead, via your reference to this CFR, that such national contingency plans are all ready in existence.
Click to expand...

^here is mott claiming federal regulations are not law...

now that mott and cypress realize what fucking morons they are, they dishonestly try to claim i am not on the thread topic.....cypress claimed the regs were only "promulgated" - which is true for tinfoil's link, not my link. mott and cypress sought to claim my link was not law, now they both dishonestly claim this is only about tinfoil's link. not true, i gave the link to current, not promulgated, CFR's...

that has been the topic until you pussies got beaten so thoroughly you had to act like i just made this topic up out of thin air...you both have tried so very hard to be right and make yurt wrong, when you finally can't answer what 1. statutory law, 2. case law, 3. administrative law; are, you become dishonest

why don't you two just grow up and admit you were wrong and that regulations are in fact law
 
Cypress said:
Yurt, your obsession with hair-splitting, inconsequential, and insignificant little factoids in hilarious.

Laws are not the same thing as regulations. That's a simple fact, that has and can be verified from the Federal Government, the State Government of California, and the Cornell University library - as demonstrated routinely on this thread.

No one ever said that regulations don't have the force of law behind them, and as such require the regulated community to comply with them. I think you're imagining that somebody said that.

Would you also please foot stomping about adminstrative law. I think the educated people on the thread understand at some level that while executive agencies are given quasi-legislative powers to promulgate regulations, there are limits placed on them. Nobody wants an executive agency to have unfettered and unchecked powers to develop regulations. Adminstrative law, as I understand it, is the code that sets the boundaries, requirements, and limits on how public agencies can carry out their quasi-legislative and rule-making authorities. Requiring public notification, public input, internal administrative procedures, and limits on the rule making process. I ain't no expert on it, but I know that this little diversion of yours not what we were talking about.

That has nothing to do with the thread, and its unfathomable why you are so obsessed with spinning and squawking about adminstrative law.

From tinfoils own link:



The Federal Clean Water Act is Statutory Law....not administrative law. So can you please just stop foot stomping, spinning, and braying about something that has nothing to do with the thread.

The link was to a regulation. And, if Mott is right, (and totally good catch by him) it was to a proposed regulation. Which doesn't have the force of law behind it. So Mott is right, Tinfoil looked foolish when he brayed about a "law" EPA is required to follow, when in fact what he posted was a proposed regulation that didn't even have the force of law behind it. I don't know if if the regulation was ever formally promulgated, but in retrospect with what we know now, Tinfoil - as per usual - totally bungled and misinterpreted what he posted. He usually does when he tries to post anything of a technical or scientific nature. It's always a barrel of fun observe the follies of various GEDers.
Click to expand...

i'm done posting the truth for your education, its clear you're goign to be dishonest and purposefully ignorant

i never claimed regulations are "laws"....i said they are "law"

you are definitely the biggest moron i've come across in a while...
 
Yurt said:
i'm done posting the truth for your education, its clear you're goign to be dishonest and purposefully ignorant

i never claimed regulations are "laws"....i said they are "law"

you are definitely the biggest moron i've come across in a while...
Click to expand...

from the Law Dictionary at Law.com


“Regulations, rules and administrative codes issued by governmental agencies at all levels, municipal, county, state and federal. Although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations.”


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1771

ALM's Law.com is the Web's leading legal news and information network for attorneys and other legal professionals.
Click to expand...

So not only does the State Government of California and the Cornell University law library explicitly agree 100% with what I’ve been saying, but the American Legal Profession ALSO agrees with me.

Regulations and rules are not laws, although the courts generally hold that they have the force of law because they are an administrative or executive agency interpretation or implementation of legislative intent – i.e., statutes.

You’re done Yurt. This is what I've been saying the entire thread, but you keep imagining there's some argument on this. Carry on braying if you must, this is getting boring, and Legal Professionals, Government Agencies, and Ivy League Law Libraries are all verifying exactly what I’ve routinely stated throughout this thread.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Read my signature, that was certainly the inference which was made, and the reason this debate ensued. It was a ridiculous and silly argument to make, but it's even sillier and more ridiculous to now claim that argument was never made!
Click to expand...
Please show me exactly where that inference was made Dixie by anyone other then you or Yurt?
 
Cypress said:
So not only does the State Government of California and the Cornell University law library explicitly agree 100% with what I’ve been saying, but the American Legal Profession ALSO agrees with me.

Regulations and rules are not laws, although the courts generally hold that they have the force of law because they are an administrative or executive agency interpretation or implementation of legislative intent – i.e., statutes.

You’re done Yurt. This is what I've been saying the entire thread, but you keep imagining there's some argument on this. Carry on braying if you must, this is getting boring, and Legal Professionals, Government Agencies, and Ivy League Law Libraries are all verifying exactly what I’ve routinely stated throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

:palm:

how many times do i have to say "I DO NOT CLAIM THEY ARE LAWS"

i claim they are in fact LAW

fucking moronic hack...you claimed earlier that they are not law and you agreed with mott, both of you are beyond stupid

it is exactly why you're too much of a coward to explain what these are:

statutory law

case law

regulatory/administrative law
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I would suggest that you do so. First, this isn't the law. It's the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you wish to review the laws on this topic I'd suggest you go reference the appropriate U.S. Code.

Second, I have read this (dear lord save me) and I have written EPCRA contingency plans for hazardous waste facilities where I've managed complicance and thirdly, thank you for validating my point to Tinhead, via your reference to this CFR, that such national contingency plans are all ready in existence.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
Wow.

I thought you were a lawyer, or something. Must have you confused with Jarod.

Regulations are not law.

Regulations are rules that are promulgated by executive agency buearacrats, with public input, to implement laws.

Laws are, by definition, statutes passed by the vote of legislators and signed by an executive.
Click to expand...

NigelTufnel said:
They aren't laws, they're regulations. That is why they are called regulations and not laws. It's fairly straight-forward, Yurt.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
Please show me exactly where that inference was made Dixie by anyone other then you or Yurt?
Click to expand...

:pke::pke:

btw...nigel is not talking about the technical term "laws"...he means it exactly as mott and cypress do...eg., their belief that regulations are not law because they weren't passed by the legislature....

what is so moronic about their logic is this....if we follow their logic, we cannot call cases "law" because they are not created by the legislature

i've never met such stupid people in my life
 
Oops...sorry! I didn't realize I had stumbled into the "extreme, irrelevant hair-splitting thread."

I'll head out...
 
Onceler said:
Oops...sorry! I didn't realize I had stumbled into the "extreme, irrelevant hair-splitting thread."

I'll head out...
Click to expand...

That's why I asked what his point was. hahah what an idiot. The thread was started to point out that the EPA has a responsibility to enact a contigency plan and that leaving the clean up to BP is a total failure of their duty.

Do you have an opinion on this assertion, or do you agree that since I called a regulation a law that somehow none of that matters. that what I get from the moron Mott and cypress. How fucking stupid do you find their argument? Oh, I see, that who you are making fun of, no? Because I know you aint making that crack about me.
Reign in your feloow idiots, will ya?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No doubt. I guess their just trying to obfuscate the fact that, as usual, Tinhead didn't know what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

lol...you're running away from claiming regulations aren't law

if you make a dumbass claim like that, expect to get called on it :pke:

i love how the uber liberal hacks have all band together on this, nigel, now onceler with his idiotic hair splitting comment, cypress and mott

fact is, regulations are either law or they are not, there is no hair split, but i wouldn't expect onceler to know the difference...mott expressly said you can't use them and that we are to only look at the USC....a total and complete incorrect statement, but mott is too dishoenst to admit he is wrong
 
BP is murdering wildlife

A new book titled Do Fish Feel Pain? by the renowned scientist, Victoria Braithwaite, is a very important read for those interested in the general topic of pain in animals, especially because it has been long assumed that fish are not sentient beings and are not all that intelligent. This is a misguided view.

Yhere is as much evidence that fish feel pain and suffer as there is for birds and mammals -- and more than there is for human neonates and preterm babies.
 
Meat is Murder said:
It would be singularly unethical not to increase protection for fish and other animals who we previously thought weren't sentient.
Click to expand...
Why is it that PETA members are to completely ignorant? First, we aint discussing fish here. Go start a new thread if you want to discuss that. Second, did you guys ever fucking study biology? It's been known that all organisms with a central nervous system are sentient for far longer then you've been alive. Now go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top