Damn those Telemarkerters!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah that's right .

Sorry, I've had a bit to drink tonight .

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You got it from me.

Counter-revolutionary Che!!!!

I think it's definetly true .

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you don't think the American revolution founding fathers were intellectuals?

[chequita guevara]

The people who started the revolution certainly weren't. The people who co-opted the revolution, however, were.

[Nubclear]

End threadjack

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I think the people that started the revolution were guided by intellectuals. The Boston smarties were able to push the firebrands.

[Kuciwalker]

Wow, that vote is insane... it's nice to see that our government can actually take action when it really matters.



I'm not sure whether or not I'm serious.

[Berzerker]

That isn't going to win you ANY prizes for predicting how judges will rule. Your explaination is inadequate because the judge ruled that the admin rule was inadequate because the agency expanded its bounds (Congress gave the right to create a Do-Not-Call List to another agency). But you didn't even read why the judge ruled the way he did, did ya?

First, I wasn't aware we were in a competition to predict the actions of judges. And second, I did read the ruling and I'm aware the judge didn't say bureaucrats lack the authority to pass laws...I said they lack that authority (you didn't even read my post )...and they do because the Constitution authorises only the Congress to write laws...

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

You should know that wasn't the intent of his opinion, and that isn't what his ruling said. So it really doesn't matter worth a damn that he put 'restraints' because Congress just overruled that .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I think the people that started the revolution were guided by intellectuals. The Boston smarties were able to push the firebrands.

I was talking about Massachusetts farmers. They had already revolted even before Concord and Lexington. There's a book out that I gave to my lil'bro, Thubbins, A People's History of the American Revolution. It's pretty cool to see it as this organic, chaotic, living thing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
First, I wasn't aware we were in a competition to predict the actions of judges. And second, I did read the ruling and I'm aware the judge didn't say bureaucrats lack the authority to pass laws...I said they lack that authority (you didn't even read my post )...and they do because the Constitution authorises only the Congress to write laws...

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

Look at it this way... Congress wrote a law that basically said "you do what they say, within these bounds". That is the practical effect of giving government agencies regulatory authority. See? Completely constitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was talking about Massachusetts farmers. They had already revolted even before Concord and Lexington.

I was talking about Bostonians, who basically revolted before Lexington and Concord with the actions against the taxes, especially the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre (which really wasn't, but sounds nice).

[Berzerker]

Geez Imran, that's the second post in a row you didn't read. Of course his intent was not to say bureaucrats can't pass laws (again, I said that), just that Congress didn't give the FTC the power to legislate in this area. And the restraint does matter, it's always nice when bureaucrats are reminded that even under the "modern" Constitution there are limits to their power...

Now a second judge (I understand) has reminded Congress it doesn't have the authority either because the 1st Amendment (did you predict that one ) from that "outdated" Constitution protects the freedom of speech.

[Kuciwalker]

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard. You have no constitutionally guaranteed right to call me.

[Berzerker]

sky -

Look at it this way... Congress wrote a law that basically said "you do what they say, within these bounds". That is the practical effect of giving government agencies regulatory authority. See? Completely constitutional.

Where in the Constitution did you find a congressional power to authorise other people to write laws? Tis a simple question...