Ouachita-Acts, Laws and Regulations

[inyati13]

Inyati, you would of been a good lawyer. Loopholes everyone's looking for loopholes, and grey areas.

Thank you. I am Highgrit, at least by experience. I spent part of my life working with US Attorneys on enforcement matters.
Which brings up an interesting point. Contrary to the assertions of CB and others on CT who think there is a federal agent behind every tree and rock, my 33 years of federal service was to the contrary. About half the US workforce is unmotivated. Following example:

I was the lead enforcement agent on a large superfund site in Montana. I had an attorney assigned to me. In fairness, when he worked, he was one of the best in the agency. I was constantly being held up by his lack of motivation. I would walk into his office to complain. I would stand quietly in the door and look over his shoulder. He spent 90 % of his time viewing a Liberal website. I have forgotten the name. I would move a step into the office and he would quickly close the page and look embarrassed.

The problem for me was that I was getting blamed for the slow progress by environmental groups in Butte, MT.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Anyone that thinks our government hasn't exceeded its constitutional authority
is bat shyt crazy IMO. They have created agencies that were not authorized to do so.
Congress only has the authority to create and maintain a military, postal system and levy tax.
My question is then what do all of these other SS agencies fall under Postal worker, Army, Navy or
illegal bureaucracy.

Caustic Burno in the post above stated: "They have created agencies that were not authorized to do so.
Congress only has the authority to create and maintain a military, postal system and levy tax."

CB: would you support this statement with a reference to the part of the Constitution that specifically prohibits or excludes the creation of agencies other than the Department of Defense, Postal Service and IRS. I have heard this statement but have never been able to substantiate the claim.

It seems odd to me that agencies that Congress has created through the legislative process that are not authorized by the Constitution would not have been challenged in the Supreme Court. Do you know if such challenges have been taken to the Supreme Court? If they have, it seems that they failed or the resulting case law would have mandated that those offices be eliminated.

If CB does not want to reply for whatever reason, Does anyone know the response to my post?

Just as a background. The Cabinet is established by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. A large number of agencies have been created around those 15 executive departments. The Congress has created the other offices and agencies through legislation. I would think if those Acts that authorized the agencies are contrary to Constitutional Law that they would have been challenged in the Supreme Court over the 200 year history of this young Republic.

Anyone can answer, does not have to be CB. This is a point I have wondered about for years and just don't care enough about to research.

Try reading the document the tenth amendment powers not granted to the Federal government in
the constitution are those of the state.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system


No alaphabet soup of agencies in the document

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[hurleyjd]

Anyone that thinks our government hasn't exceeded its constitutional authority
is bat shyt crazy IMO. They have created agencies that were not authorized to do so.
Congress only has the authority to create and maintain a military, postal system and levy tax.
My question is then what do all of these other SS agencies fall under Postal worker, Army, Navy or
illegal bureaucracy.

Caustic Burno in the post above stated: "They have created agencies that were not authorized to do so.
Congress only has the authority to create and maintain a military, postal system and levy tax."

CB: would you support this statement with a reference to the part of the Constitution that specifically prohibits or excludes the creation of agencies other than the Department of Defense, Postal Service and IRS. I have heard this statement but have never been able to substantiate the claim.

It seems odd to me that agencies that Congress has created through the legislative process that are not authorized by the Constitution would not have been challenged in the Supreme Court. Do you know if such challenges have been taken to the Supreme Court? If they have, it seems that they failed or the resulting case law would have mandated that those offices be eliminated.

If CB does not want to reply for whatever reason, Does anyone know the response to my post?

Just as a background. The Cabinet is established by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. A large number of agencies have been created around those 15 executive departments. The Congress has created the other offices and agencies through legislation. I would think if those Acts that authorized the agencies are contrary to Constitutional Law that they would have been challenged in the Supreme Court over the 200 year history of this young Republic.

Anyone can answer, does not have to be CB. This is a point I have wondered about for years and just don't care enough about to research.

Try reading the document the tenth amendment powers not granted to the Federal government in
the constitution are those of the state.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system


No alaphabet soup of agencies in the document

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There are many bat shyt governors and state govvernment now than ever. Just glad we have a federal government to keep them in line.

 

[inyati13]

Addressed to Caustic Bruno:
Problem: Are the creation of government agencies not implicitly named in Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution Authorized?

Preface: The Landmark Supreme Court Decision by Chief Justice Marshall is the key to why the powers of Congress to create new agencies under the Necessary and Proper Clause has not been challenged in the supreme court. Look at these words in that decision:

" to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted." Chief Justice Marshall.

Congress creates agencies and offices to implement legislation via Enabling Acts. There are three requirements in order for legislation to be implemented:
1. Funding
2. Human Resources
3. Authority

An enabling act is a piece of legislation by which Congress grants an entity which depends on it for authorization or legitimacy of power to take certain actions. For example, enabling acts often establish government agencies to carry out specific government policies in a modern nation.

Article One, Section 8 of the constitution provides Congress its powers. It begins:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause,[1] is a provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, located at section 8, clause 18. It states as follows:
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

CB, absorb the words above that I put in BOLD here:
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

The Necessary and Proper Clause has been and is the constitutional authority for non-explicit acts of congress such as Enabling Acts under which government agencies are created.
The Necessary and proper Clause was tested in the following landmark decision in 1819.

Landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall

This clause, as justification for the creation of a national bank, was put to the test in 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland,[6] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's longtime Federalist ally, wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it conferred upon Congress an implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so that Congress could realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. Marshall wrote:
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.
The court in McCulloch v. Maryland[6] held that Federal laws could be necessary without being "absolutely necessary", and noted that "The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers." At the same time, the court retained the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, declaring that it had the power to strike down laws that departed from those powers: "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land."
As Chief Justice Marshall put it, the Necessary and Proper Clause "purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted."[7][8] Without this clause in the Constitution, there would have been a dispute about whether the express powers imply incidental powers, whereas this clause resolved that dispute by making the incidental powers express instead of implied.[8]
In a related case following the Civil War, the clause was employed (in combination with other enumerated powers) to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.[9]

Postscript:
While Article One, Section 8 includes explicit powers, it does not exclude or prohibit legislation to satisfy the needs of a growing Republic as necessary under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nowhere in Section 8 is there a warrant to diminish the powers vested in the government. Congress has used that authority to pass enabling legislation and create the necessary agencies and offices to implement legislation.

 

[Caustic Burno]

"hurleyjd"


So you think the framers of the constitution got it wrong?
Do you prefer Socialism, Fascism, Communism?

 

[Caustic Burno]

Addressed to Caustic Bruno:
Problem: Are the creation of government agencies not implicitly named in Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution Authorized?

Preface: The Landmark Supreme Court Decision by Chief Justice Marshall is the key to why the powers of Congress to create new agencies under the Necessary and Proper Clause has not been challenged in the supreme court. Look at these words in that decision:

" to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted." Chief Justice Marshall.

Congress creates agencies and offices to implement legislation via Enabling Acts. There are three requirements in order for legislation to be implemented:
1. Funding
2. Human Resources
3. Authority

An enabling act is a piece of legislation by which Congress grants an entity which depends on it for authorization or legitimacy of power to take certain actions. For example, enabling acts often establish government agencies to carry out specific government policies in a modern nation.

Article One, Section 8 of the constitution provides Congress its powers. It begins:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause,[1] is a provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, located at section 8, clause 18. It states as follows:
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

CB, absorb the words above that I put in BOLD here:
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

The Necessary and Proper Clause has been and is the constitutional authority for non-explicit acts of congress such as Enabling Acts under which government agencies are created.
The Necessary and proper Clause was tested in the following landmark decision in 1819.

Landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall

This clause, as justification for the creation of a national bank, was put to the test in 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland,[6] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's longtime Federalist ally, wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it conferred upon Congress an implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so that Congress could realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. Marshall wrote:
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.
The court in McCulloch v. Maryland[6] held that Federal laws could be necessary without being "absolutely necessary", and noted that "The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers." At the same time, the court retained the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, declaring that it had the power to strike down laws that departed from those powers: "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land."
As Chief Justice Marshall put it, the Necessary and Proper Clause "purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted."[7][8] Without this clause in the Constitution, there would have been a dispute about whether the express powers imply incidental powers, whereas this clause resolved that dispute by making the incidental powers express instead of implied.[8]
In a related case following the Civil War, the clause was employed (in combination with other enumerated powers) to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.[9]

Postscript:
While Article One, Section 8 includes explicit powers, it does not exclude or prohibit legislation to satisfy the needs of a growing Republic as necessary under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nowhere in Section 8 is there a warrant to diminish the powers vested in the government. Congress has used that authority to pass enabling legislation and create the necessary agencies and offices to implement legislation.

Follow the wording of the Constitution our framers wrote just to stop the Gestapo acts and agencies Congress has
created all while the American public sat with their thumb jammed up their butt.
We have already fought two civil wars over the abuse of power.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

CB, better just let it go, inyati is just trying to defend his pension plan.

 

[Caustic Burno]

CB, better just let it go, inyati is just trying to defend his pension plan.

Your right many people joined the KKK or SS thinking it was the right thing to do
They were influential in many "laws" as well.
Our history is full of them.

 

[wlamarparmer]

Inyati,
Enjoy Your posts., have not read all on this issue on forum, but have idea sir that You are Academician, with Your facts and issues logged permanently in Your psyche. Understand some Your issues mine safety W. Va, Late 70-early 80., but man were You always middle road, or did management P**s You off, and You over reacted. Know You don't "believe" but if You can stand in front of Your maker and say "I did right" Kudos to You. I see You as a successful, opinionated,
person who justifies his government role, but at same time say, if they nice, me good, otherwise p**s me off suffer my wrath, Is that proper.

 

[HDRider]

This just out.

Report: 3,554 new regs in 2014, 16 for every law, $1.8 trillion price tag

$14,976 on every single household, or about 29 percent of an average American's income.

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/10% ... 2-2015.pdf

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

This just out.

Report: 3,554 new regs in 2014, 16 for every law, $1.8 trillion price tag

$14,976 on every single household, or about 29 percent of an average American's income.

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/10% ... 2-2015.pdf

Well played HDRider.

 

[Caustic Burno]

This just out.

Report: 3,554 new regs in 2014, 16 for every law, $1.8 trillion price tag

$14,976 on every single household, or about 29 percent of an average American's income.

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/10% ... 2-2015.pdf

Well played HDRider.

Don't expect it to get better just another backdoor taxation method.

 

[Ouachita]

Thank you for your clarification. I do listen to to other folks perspective. I choose a more conservative view of the Constitution. The words "necessary" and "proper" are relative, and open for interpretation, as is "general welfare". I like to see people passionately defend a position. Sometimes we need to disagree so the discussion can occur. Thanks.

Apologies for my late reply to a topic intended for me. For some reason, my wifi at home has been poor to Midland for the past few weeks; mostly poor. Most of what I would add has already been said.

 

[inyati13]

Inyati,
Enjoy Your posts., have not read all on this issue on forum, but have idea sir that You are Academician, with Your facts and issues logged permanently in Your psyche. Understand some Your issues mine safety W. Va, Late 70-early 80., but man were You always middle road, or did management P**s You off, and You over reacted. Know You don't "believe" but if You can stand in front of Your maker and say "I did right" Kudos to You. I see You as a successful, opinionated,
person who justifies his government role, but at same time say, if they nice, me good, otherwise p**s me off suffer my wrath, Is that proper.

Thank you for your comments.
I assume you are referencing the incident where I was locked in and the liaison stood me before the mine workforce. I am not bothered by the outcome. What I remember most about that incident is that he did not intimidate me. I felt a lack of control and I was determined to send a message that his tactics might not be wise policy. It is like being involved in a drama that is playing out. You are one of the actors and you have to play your role and see where it ends. I am by innate character an unaggressive person. However, that capacity can be exceeded. IMO, this incident does not reach that threshold. My capacity to be rational was exceeded only once in the conduct of my duties. I will confess, I am ashamed of my response and it was totally oral.

Background for the incident you reference:
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was signed in 1977 to regulate the surface effects of coal mining. I was one of the second wave of enforcement agents brought into the new agency, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). The coal mining industry in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia was entrenched in 50 years of corruption. Mining permits were purchased. Inspectors were largely on the mine payrolls. When the first wave of federal enforcement was on the ground, the industry responded with threats, intimidation and violence. Those days are the most thrilling days of my life. The District Manager deployed me onto some of the toughest cases. I was deployed because I could relate to the culture, I understood mining and I didn't respond to intimidation in a way he did not accept. I was one of the only initial employees who had coal mining experience. I served as Reclamation Supervisor for Tesoro Coal Company in Hazard, KY for three years at the young age of 25. Despite what the incident you refer to has led you to conclude, the coal companies that recognized change had to come, appreciated my even-handed and fair approach. So did the agency. I was hired July 7, 1978 as a GS 11. The agency had me reapply for employment and they hired me back as a GS 13. I totally skipped the GS 12. That is highly unusual.

I did not go untested. I have been laid hands on and I have been pinned under rifle fire. I was prime party to the gritty Virgil Bishop case. The largest coal operator in Magoffin County, threated me, my spouse and the burning of my property. Consequently, I was transferred to Denver, CO. Inspectors in Tennessee were beaten on the road. One was pinned down on a bridge and several men beat him so badly that his jaw was broken. The stinking creek area of Tennessee required OSM to request escort protection from the DOD. Helicopters were used with manned machine guns to prevent inspectors from being fired on during the conduct of their duties.

I have no remorse for the incident you reference. It was common practice for renegade companies of that period to put a thug up as your liaison. His sole job was to intimidate and threaten you. I was not reserved about paybacks when they could be delivered within the scope of my duties and they were legal. As 3waycross stated: I am human. I have committed worse transgressions if I want to beat up on myself.

 

[highgrit]

I know of a health inspector that received a broken jaw with only one punch. It's heck when your in a bathroom taking a leak and hit your head. Inyati, sounds like you put a lot of folks on welfare to me, but you were only doing your job. The coal miners lost and so did we as a country, clean energy is not all that clean. But look at the jobs it created, it's all about $$$.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation- ... 1431099256

Seems like a long winded version of Jo's theory of which laws pertain to him.

 

[inyati13]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-run-amokand-how-to-fight-back-1431099256

Seems like a long winded version of Jo's theory of which laws pertain to him.

The Wall Street Journal piece while interesting commentary does not address the issue that started this thread. Furthermore, it does not address the legislative authority for Acts and laws and the promulgation of regulations pursuant to those laws. For context, there was a previous thread that raised the initial question posed by Ouachita of "whose regulations" are these. You can go back to sleep now, you might be the only one here who is spending their time well.

PS: BTW, Caustic Bruno would not be in agreement with the commentary included in your referenced piece, i.e., ignore the regulations. He has everyone here thinking there is an enforcement officer behind every tree and rock. Reference his thread about using detergent as a surfactant. I still have not seen anyone present a reference for a prosecution.

PS2: Regarding ignoring regulations. That is not a new practice. Been going on since the beginning of the Constitutional Authority for legislation.