Fire This Bitch

[Billy_Kinetta]

How typical.

FEC member: Not my role to 'apply constitutional principles'

 

[Care4all]

What question was she responding to and who was she responding to....need some context? I didn't see it in the op ed link you posted....? Maybe I missed it?

 

[Care4all]

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

 

[Pilate]

You'd think these people would know that the constitution is, in a sense, law.

 

[depotoo]

Law? She doesn't know what she is even talking about. It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

 

[Fenton Lum]

You'd think these people would know that the constitution is, in a sense, law.

The constitution has in common american usage become as irrelevant as the bible when it comes to settling anything, they're both merely rocks to throw at one another now.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

You and the author of the OP really are that ignorant, HUH! Read up on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and try to understand the structure of the laws, the Courts and the regulators and how it all fits together. The Act is codified in Title V and here is a link that will help you and others understand how it is SUPPOSED to work.
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II

 

[ColonelAngus]

How does the constitution apply to party primaries?

 

[hazlnut]

How typical.

FEC member: Not my role to 'apply constitutional principles'

You lazy butt, post something so we know what this is even about.

You want me to click on your link, do the work and give us some background.

And when you start with 'fire this bitch'... you realize you come off like an asshole.

 

[hazlnut]

How typical.

FEC member: Not my role to 'apply constitutional principles'

You dishonest pig fuck.

You left out half the quote.

...I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


She's exactly right.

You total failure of a human being.

 

[depotoo]

Rules are made to clarify laws, and sometimes those rules are not within the intent of the law. And it was a vote as to whether they did or didn't follow the rule, thus obviously subjective. This, in the end was dismissed.
Are you not aware of rules different agencies have established that have been found to be beyond the intent and scope of law, by the Supreme Court?
Here is one example for you, and there have been many in recent years.
Original Intent Treatise - Code of Federal Regulations

It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

You and the author of the OP really are that ignorant, HUH! Read up on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and try to understand the structure of the laws, the Courts and the regulators and how it all fits together. The Act is codified in Title V and here is a link that will help you and others understand how it is SUPPOSED to work.
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'd think these people would know that the constitution is, in a sense, law.

All laws are constitutional until ruled unconstitutional.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Law? She doesn't know what she is even talking about. It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

neither do you, just what is the basis for the "regulations" they are responsible for enforcing? LAWS you dumbass.

 

[depotoo]

Of which they (agencies) decide the regulations, which have often been found to NOT follow the intent of the law? There when that regulation is found NOT to follow intent, it is not law. Now who is the dumbass.

Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution

Our duty as citizens is to question when regulations do not appear to follow intent of the law. Fox questioned the wording and intent of the fec's regulation, as is their right. Fine was dropped.

Law? She doesn't know what she is even talking about. It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

neither do you, just what is the basis for the "regulations" they are responsible for enforcing? LAWS you dumbass.

 

[namvet]

OMG two Pislosi's

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Rules are made to clarify laws, and sometimes those rules are not within the intent of the law. And it was a vote as to whether they did or didn't follow the rule, thus obviously subjective. This, in the end was dismissed.
Are you not aware of rules different agencies have established that have been found to be beyond the intent and scope of law, by the Supreme Court?
Here is one example for you, and there have been many in recent years.
Original Intent Treatise - Code of Federal Regulations

Your entire post is SHIT because that is what you know of the subject...SHIT! Posting a link about the CFR is not understanding the relationship between the laws passed by Congress, the agencies formulating any required rules/regulations necessary to comply with a given law and the check on both Congress and an Executive Agency through Judicial Review as part of the whole process! Don't even fucking try to baffle me with your bullshit!

I have been acutely aware of specific cases of certain agencies abusing their power and being taken to task for willful violation of lawful intent. A specific example which directly impacted my medical care and VA compensation was Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!! The following was YOUR comment to which I responded!

It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

YOU are the one who implied a stark and distinct difference between the rule/regulation and the law from which it authorized, you bloody fool! Now STFU when you don't know what the Hell you're talking about!

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Of which they (agencies) decide the regulations, which have often been found to NOT follow the intent of the law? There when that regulation is found NOT to follow intent, it is not law. Now who is the dumbass.

Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution

Our duty as citizens is to question when regulations do not appear to follow intent of the law. Fox questioned the wording and intent of the fec's regulation, as is their right. Fine was dropped.

Law? She doesn't know what she is even talking about. It was regarding a regulation-not a law.

"We responded ... in our view, in a nonpartisan way, in a way that was consistent with the clear law," said Ravel, who also chaired the agency last year. "My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles because I'm not on the Supreme Court. If I were, I'd be happy to do so. We're a regulatory agency and our role is to follow the law and apply the law."


from the article...

neither do you, just what is the basis for the "regulations" they are responsible for enforcing? LAWS you dumbass.

You're still the dumbass! Never said a regulation was law, just based on law. Do you think because the regulation (process, procedure) is deemed invalid, that it makes the law invalid? The regulations are still based upon the law, that was my point. You made it sound as though the regulations are just something pulled out of your ass and no consideration to the law takes place.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You'd think these people would know that the constitution is, in a sense, law.

The constitution has in common american usage become as irrelevant as the bible when it comes to settling anything, they're both merely rocks to throw at one another now.

Well, that needs to change.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How typical.

FEC member: Not my role to 'apply constitutional principles'

You lazy butt, post something so we know what this is even about.

You want me to click on your link, do the work and give us some background.

And when you start with 'fire this bitch'... you realize you come off like an asshole.

Read the piece.

You opinion is noted and dispensed with.

 

[my2¢]

I see her point and would do the same. It would be stupid not to go by the law and instead use one's personal interpretation of how the Constitution should be applied.