USAF = US Amphetamine Fools

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

NASA is an extra Constitutional entity, just like US DOT and they are
identical in being Congressional authority delegated to the Executive.


Do you stay up late at night making this stuff up? NASA is an agency
established by the Executive branch to "execute" under the
authorization and appropriations of enabling legislation enacted by
the Legislative branch. There's nothing "extra Constitutional" about
it.

Yes Ed, Congress delegates much of its authority to the Executive. That
way
Administrative Law can enable the spending of money which otherwise would
have to be allocated by Congress directly.

Administrative "Law" is simply the power of "regulation" rather than
"legislation" and is well within the existing Constitutional authority
of the Executive Branch. The "enabling" to spending money is more than
adequately covered by the passage of appropriation bills. That's the
whole of idea of an "Executive" branch--it executes the policy
legislated by the Congress.

Those Federal powers in the Constitution are quite limited and intentionally
so. The three branches of Government and their powers, the military, the
postal service and coining money are eacmples of Constitutional entities.
The Executive Branch is not there to implement the will of congress, but as
a co-equal Branch of governemtn.

Congressional "authority", in other words the power of the Legislative
branch as described in the Constitution cannot be "delegated" to the
Executive.

LOL

Ed, go fly an airplane and forget about trying to understand how the
system
works.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

John, since you brandish your MS/PE in your sig, it indicates an
educational accomplishment. Similarly, but not brandished, my
educational accomplishments include MPS (Master of Political
Science--Auburn U. 1978) and MSIR (Master of International
Relations--Troy State U. 1981). I teach Political Science in Colorado
Springs and you are welcome any time you pass through to visit the
college and audit my classes.

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
not a single one of them is mentioned. Not only do you not find NASA
or DOT or DOE which you mention, you also don't find State, Defense,
the AG, SG, Interior, et. al. Not a one. You also don't find NSA--and
didn't until Eisenhower; or CIA, not till Truman, or SEC or FDA or any
mention of the Executive Office of the President. All you find listed
for the Executive branch is a Prez and VP. They are charged with a
number of functions and given the authority to organize as they see
fit to accomplish them.

Your initial description of NASA as an "extra-Constitutional entity"
is probably linquistically correct in that it is an agency not
described in the document, but legally incorrect in that agencies
would be described as "Constitutional" or un-Constitutional.

Libertarian thought, while enlightening in some instances it certainly
would create a workload for the President if it disbanded those
entities which are not described in the Constitution. Wonder how long
it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
with just him and Cheney doing the job?

Your description of (R)epublican "thinking" as the Feds only doing
what the States can't is really the "Anti-Federalist" thinking of
Thomas Jefferson--father of the Democratic Party. And your description
of the (D)emocratic idea that Federal power should be unlimited and
seek to satisfy the masses is really the great shift instituted by FDR
in response to the political process. The people in the depths of the
Great Depression demanded that the great White Father in Washington
rescue them--and, of course he responded. Today, both Republicans and
Democrats routinely beg Washington to solve every problem that society
encounters.

We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
"great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
"we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
themselves.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Wonder how long
it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
with just him and Cheney doing the job?

It's an entertaining thought, but the lads could hardly do a worse job
that the incumbent (i.e. the USPS)!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities
are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that
Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal
with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that
Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses.
I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
not a single one of them is mentioned.

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
the students can parrot the professor.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how well
the students can parrot the professor.


Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
the students can parrot the professor"?

Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
"the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
statements support this contention.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

I think you are on to something, Ed.

Whenever I am dealing with Congressional staff, or high ups in USDOT, it
is
always a good laugh to compare academia's abstract view of the system and
how things really work. All that America's children are taught in
primary
school civics is a big joke. Some universities are capable of giving
some
insight, but the majority of such programs are only testimng to see how
well
the students can parrot the professor.

Excuse me, John, but how does dealing with Congressional staff or top
level bureaucrats in DOT give you any view at all about academia?

We are ll degreed folks and we know how divergent what is taught in school
is from reality.

When was the last time you were in a government/civics/political
science calss in "some universities"? Can you provide some basis for
the statement "such programs are only testimng (sic) to see how well
the students can parrot the professor"?

I had my political science instruction from a Black radical, but he had
reformed. As with many educated Blacks he was intrigued by my name.

Let me start by stating the obvious, that the reason the professor is
"the professor" is because he or she knows a bit more than the
students. Certainly a university is a place for develping thinking and
reasoning schools, but first the student must be well grounded in the
basics. Then, if they present a rational and well developed argument,
you can be certain that they are rewarded.

Well, actually no. What is taught in school is not the same as reality, but
there is much to be said for the ability to parrot the professor.

Although, come to think of it, you do present a compelling case that
America's citizens do get a sub-standard education. Many of your
statements support this contention.

Ed, how you could be teaching political science without knowing US history
is a mystery to me. There is the possibility that these United States would
just as soon academia be ignorant, as the People might be able to implement
change, were they awaere of reality.