![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US
Military. We're talking about knowledge of the law. The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President, That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey the law? FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft...within the United States...." Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless the law itself provides the exemption. Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your position? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US Military. We're talking about knowledge of the law. Yes, we are. The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President, That's silly. Everyone working for the President doesn't have to obey the law? Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated Congrsional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? FAR 91.1 says that it "prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft...within the United States...." No, a FAR is a Federal Acquisition Regulation and has nothing to do with airspace. Doesn't say "civil" or "military", so it applies to everyone, unless the law itself provides the exemption. If you mean CFR 14, then that administrative law has only to do with those individuals and corporations that volentarily submit themselves to FAA's regulatory authority. Can you provide any supporting evidence at all to justify your position? You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated
Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law: -----snip-------- Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the national armies is plenary and exclusive. -----snip-------- You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. I've given you the following 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs All you've given me is statements based on your own authority. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Congress has no authority to make such a law, so how could delegated Congressional authority lead to any such regulatory authority? Here's a quote from the Cornell web page on military law: -----snip-------- Congress's control over formation, organization and government of the national armies is plenary and exclusive. -----snip-------- Congress' power is limited to funding and declaration of war. Any claim of Congressional primacy over the military seems childish, in light of the past 30 years of American history. Even the enabling order giving DoD authority over the military has been resinded, during this Administration. You have failed to support your position, Greg, or to even know the words. I've given you the following 1) Statement by the FAA's general counsel's office 2) References to the FARs which contain military exemptions 3) FAR statements as to the applicability of the regs All you've given me is statements based on your own authority. I'll refer you to Article II section 2: "The President shall be Commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;" Historically, this section of Article II is the explicit price George Washinton required to become the first President of the Republic; no George Washington, no Republic. Washington, commander of the Army of Virginia, was the most powerful man in America at the time and refused to relinquish power in order to be President. I suggest that in the future, you post items you are capable of understanding, Esres. As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way subject to FAA review. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own
regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way subject to FAA review. This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no power over the military. # U.S. Code: * 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces * 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or Veteran's Facilities Property * 32 U.S.C. - National Guard * 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services * 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits * 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability of Congress to make laws governing the military. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... As has been pointed out by other posters, the Military has their own regulation bringing them into compliance with some sections of CFR14, but this document is controlled by the military and is in no way subject to FAA review. This law you speak of was created by the Congress that you say has no power over the military. I never wrote that Congress has no power over the Military. Please do try to keep the voices in your head from taking over your side of the debate. # U.S. Code: * 10 U.S.C. - Armed Forces * 18 U.S.C. § 1024 - Purchase or Receipt of Military, Naval, or Veteran's Facilities Property * 32 U.S.C. - National Guard * 37 U.S.C. - Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services * 38 U.S.C. - Veterans' Benefits * 50 U.S.C. - War and National Defense The President being Commander-in-Chief in no way reduces the ability of Congress to make laws governing the military. All these are funding issues Esres; an issue I explicitly pointed out Congress controls. You see Esres, these united States operate under a three branch system of Government. Each of these branches has explicit power granted under the Constitution and then Congress has delegated some powers to the Executive. Congress, having delegated powers to the Excutive, does not increase the Constitutional powers of Congress. Esres, you are persueing a false premise. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
All these are funding issues Esres;
There are not. You haven't scanned through Title 10. Covers the whole gamut of issues. you are persueing a false premise. My premise is you don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't preclude you from being right; you know the saw about a stopped clock.... But you need to offer evidence, and you haven't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mil Acft heard on HF freqs, Monday 20 Sep 2004 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | September 21st 04 08:28 PM |
Moore Plays The Nation's Liberals For Fools | W. D. Allen Sr. | Military Aviation | 3 | June 30th 04 12:41 PM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | BUFDRVR | Military Aviation | 13 | August 15th 03 08:35 PM |