USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
No, military compliance with CFR14 is at the US military's
discression.

Well, you're contradicting the FAA's General Counsel's Office.

FAA's General Counsel has absolutely no authority over the US Military.

By what authority are you able to do that?

The US Constitution, which puts the Military directly under the President,
while US DOT is an extra Contitutional entity; with its authority delegated
by Congresss to the Executive. US DOT is not even a part of the chain of
cammand.

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.