It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Sounds like a good idea if the medication is unnecessary...




posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
One related question that I haven't seen anyone mention is why Trump isn't working with Congress on any new laws yet. I haven't heard of anything specific on that front, and it seems strange to me.

Not if you consider the idea that Trump seriously thinks he is a king and has more power than he really does.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
progs, socialist, communist, gumming up government. Coming out of the woodwork.

They are setting a very terrible precedent.
Every time they do this consider the counter-action that will occur when democrats control the executive.
There are plenty of conservative judges out there.

Either the executive breaks these chains, or all future government becomes completely dysfunctional.

Challenging EO's and laws in court is a timeless practice dating back to the beginning of the country. Obama's EOs were also challenged in court. Why you think this is a new precedent being set by liberals is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Problem is the authorities that have the power to do this have more important work to do. We need a commission to work on this for sure and I don't think it should be the time it takes that makes one back off...However Congress has many many much more important things to work on ahead of this. The problem I see is we are in a huge wasteful tangled mess of adding more laws more EOs more regs and rules and never looking at the effectiveness of them or the need for them. It's like we have added a new rule for every little thing over the decades and now find the mess will take so long to sort that to do so many other areas will lack the necessary attention...Or we add new departments and people to the already bloated government to handle the workload. Ironically we would be trying to solve a problem by making the overall bloat of the government we are trying to solve worse. I'm just glad I'm not the one responsible for fixing that mess lol...I see no good solution.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: jtma508

Sounds like a good idea if the medication is unnecessary...

Point out the study that shows which regulations are unnecessary and which are necessary so we know the correct pool of regulations to cull.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t, I have to agree this time. I mean, really? Making up laws, ignoring laws, disregarding precedence, listening to only one side, sticking his nose into matters he knows nothing about, being appointed and never getting elected to anything... oh, wait, you said Trump! I'm sorry; I was thinking you said Robart... my bad.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just off the top of my head there was a thread here recently from one of our members talking about how is town is getting a new sewer system...Long story short the original contractor they had couldn't do the job due to a regulation that required him to source his material from a minority owned business...Of which the closest was hours away. Is that a necessary regulation? Does the government need to mandate who a contractor sources from as long as what he sources is quality materials?

And that's just off the top of my head from a recent thread...I'm at work so I don't have time to google a list for you...However I'm positive this isn't the only useless reg.

ETA: The problem I was pointing out that there has been no comprehensive study I know of and who would be trusted to make an unbiased study...And how long would such a thing take considering the number of regs and the time needed to determine their need if any at all.
edit on 8-2-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I didn't ask you for an anecdote. Anecdotes don't show a comprehensive list of regulations that need to be culled. All anecdotes do is supply an emotional appeal with your rhetoric. Would you care to try again with my request?

PS: Keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with your premise that there are too many regulations, I'm just disagreeing with the idea that we should just randomly pick them out of a hat to get rid of. There should be a methodology to identifying the burdensome regulations to eliminate.
edit on 8-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I agree with most of what you say, and it seems that we agree that the government passes too many laws/regs/EOs without giving it appropriate thought or without due care.

That said, we should take a break from such inappropriate legislating and use that time to evaluate and rid the system of inappropriate regulations and laws. Then, at that point, maybe continue with the legislating for new federal control over our "free" society.

There's plenty of room to get this done, they just have to be willing to put the time into it.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t, I have to agree this time. I mean, really? Making up laws, ignoring laws, disregarding precedence, listening to only one side, sticking his nose into matters he knows nothing about, being appointed and never getting elected to anything... oh, wait, you said Trump! I'm sorry; I was thinking you said Robart... my bad.

TheRedneck

How is Robart making up laws? Which laws are Robart ignoring? Which precedence is he disregarding? I know for a FACT that the judges in this case are listening to both sides. Judges also aren't elected as a general rule, so how you can hold that against him is ridiculous.
edit on 8-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
2 for 1. I swear it sounds like a weekend special at KFC.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

So basically, the federal agencies which pretty much write new regulations out of whole cloth whenever they feel they need them and are under control of the president can't be ordered how to conduct their business by the president?

This is part of the Democrat's opposition strategy.

Sue. Sue over everything. Judge shop to the most sympathetic judges they can and try to lock everything up in the courts so nothing can ever get done.

It doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not, folks, this is the Democrat strategy because they can't effect opposition any other way.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Maybe we need a 2 for one deal on departments lol...Remove 2 redundant ones create one to deal with this mess...Seriously though there has to be whole basements devoted to storing the hard copies of the active regs. Barring a software sorting system this would literally take hundreds of people at varying levels of decision making with steps to recheck and make sure someone didn't suck at their job and miss stuff to sort it. And I doubt it could be done within 4 years.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't say we should pick randomly and I don't think that's what Trump was saying either. I think he was trying to put pressure one all of those who want more created to find ones that weren't needed in their area to get rid of. It seems smart to me if you take into account how much time and work load it would be sorting through all that crap. Congress can't do it alone and I can't think of many qualified to do it save for the departments the regs came from. Almost like a police your own crap type of system. I can definitely see its drawbacks but sometimes there is no clean solution...No matter how much we want one.

This is something I'm used to in production. Just because someone wants a specific type of gear it's not always possible and as the tech running the show sometimes you have to do what works even if it has some risk...ie using some type of gear you don't have the best familiarity with...Still works 99% of the time but it's not clean and will cause some headaches/extra homework.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It's gotten to the point that the Left is going to file lawsuits and protest literally everything he does. Pointless, and flat out stupid, truly. They have no case. Nothing in the Constitution states that there must be any number of allowed new regulations.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I could aak the same questions about Trump, except that he was elected by the people and states.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD




Of which the closest was hours away.

No email? No fax machine? Or did he just want to give his brother some business?

The contractor knew his responsibility when he bid the job and signed the contract. He violated the terms of his contract an left a lot of people holding the bag. It happens all too often.

edit on 2/8/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
Will some "so-called" judges get in Trump's way?

Sounds like an idiot statement that Trump would make.
He's presently being censured over his idiotic going after fed judges who muzzle his idiot decrees!
Perhaps all those judges who deny l'Enfant Orange are 'fake' and 'unfair', the idiot child's usual whine.
You've picked it up nicely...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't say we should pick randomly and I don't think that's what Trump was saying either. I think he was trying to put pressure one all of those who want more created to find ones that weren't needed in their area to get rid of. It seems smart to me if you take into account how much time and work load it would be sorting through all that crap. Congress can't do it alone and I can't think of many qualified to do it save for the departments the regs came from. Almost like a police your own crap type of system. I can definitely see its drawbacks but sometimes there is no clean solution...No matter how much we want one.

That's a lot of assumptions and projections you are making onto Trump. Where is your evidence that he has considered this? Just because YOU realize the complexities doesn't mean that he has. You guys always doubt anything we say about Trump, yet you are speaking for him like you guys are best buddies. Go prove know what he is thinking.

To me the lack of clarity on this subject and the way the EO is written makes it look like Trump couldn't give a hoot which regulations are removed. To him ALL the regulations are bad. There is a reason past Presidents make clearer EO's. This way the public can't project themselves onto what is being said. When the text is clear, there is no dispute on the meaning. Trump's text is vague and more like a broad goal.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nice deflection when I call you on your previous deflection. I knew you were making up a silly and nonsensical point to begin with, though I wanted to make sure.







 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join