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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to applicable FARs because they are required to do so. Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to FAR's. They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA. While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no ambiguity. You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law. Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these cases, the FAA backed down. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"C.D. Damron" wrote in message news:RqV0b.213070$uu5.38577@sccrnsc04... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... You make it sound like there's an option. The military adheres to applicable FARs because they are required to do so. Military pilots adhere to FAR's because they are ordered to adhere to FAR's. They are held accountable by their command, not the FAA. While there is some statutory ambiguity, in practice, there is no ambiguity. Even the Statute refers only to ATC. Not some "applicable FARs". You can't just cite the law and ignore how it has been interpreted by government agencies, the military, and administrative law courts over a number of decades. If you ignore how the law has been applied, you can reach some stupid conclusions, based on the letter of the law. Only in a couple of cases where the FAA threatened to pull the tickets of military pilots has the FAA asserted itself in this area. Even in these cases, the FAA backed down. FAA is now prohibited, by adminstrative law, from sanctioning Miilitary pilots in any way. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way) was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action, but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what the government "can't" do. More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow. I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document. It could have been something as simple as wanting to keep the Constitution streamlined, or as devious as a worry that all 13 former colonies might not ratify it with the Bill included. Nor do I remember how the Bill was ratified. If it went to the states (as they now were), the second possibility can be ruled out. To carry on the civics lesson: the Constitution went into effect when nine states had ratified it; New Hampshire was the 9th state to do so. Vermont was not one of the 13 colonies, nor one of the 13 states who are memorialized as the stripes on the American flag. When Vermont joined the Union, the tradition was already underway that the United States would expand virtually without limit. All the press goes to the Declaration of Independence and the war of revolution that followed it, but the Constitution was the document that changed the world. Just about every nation, at one time or another, has declared independence and/or fought a revolution, but what other created a document for self-government that lasted more than 200 years? In my opinion, even the 3/5 provision ought to be there, enshrined forever, so we'll never forget that the document wasn't perfect to begin with, but is being perfected over time. 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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way) was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action, but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what the government "can't" do. More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow. I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document. The Bill of Rights restricts the power of the Central Government and the Federalists (libertarians) did not want the federal government resticted. John P. Tarver, MS/PE |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... [snipped] The FAA, and even the 14CFR itself refers to 14 CFR as the Federal Aviation Regulations and uses the abbreviation FAR. Not anymore. In consent decree FAA agrees to not use the acronym FAR anymore. Somebody better tell the FAA... Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USAF axes the bicycle aerobics test | S. Sampson | Military Aviation | 22 | August 10th 03 03:50 AM |
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes | Ken Insch | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 03 02:36 AM |
NZ plane lands safely with help from USAF | Jughead | Military Aviation | 0 | July 6th 03 10:23 PM |
From Col.Greg Davis USAF (ret) | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 03 07:56 PM |