Comments on: Your Rights Under Regulatory Law

By: Ron Paul 2012!

Ron Paul 2012! — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:29:25 +0000

I read a short little book called “Adventures in Legal Land” a couple of years ago when I was battling my HOA. I won, and do not pay any fees. It is all about having the right mindset – not knowing the usurper’s rules, regulations, and ordinances per se.

By: You really don’t have any « Authentically Wired

You really don’t have any « Authentically Wired — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:04:35 +0000

[...] Your Rights Under Regulatory Law [...]

By: Goober

Goober — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:21:01 +0000

Ron Paul talks tough at every turn, but if you actually look at his legislative accomplishments, even given his posts on some important comissions, he hasn’t accomplished much of anything. i doubt very much him being elected will change anything.

By: Jean

Jean — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:38:50 +0000

This is why we need a libertarian-constitution recognizing president in this
upcoming election. Ron Paul is that man and he plans on abolishing the EPA. Which can’t happen to soon. Chances are if we were to check the Federal Register there is no regulation with the force and effect of law for this agency. Just a bunch of criminals stealing from the little guy for the benefit of the wealthy. Ron Paul may not, on his own be able to correct the situation but with the bully pulpit he can put pressure on the sellouts in congress to get rid of this criminal agency. This is one agency he has
said he would eliminate. Vote for Ron Paul

By: Joe in Missouri

Joe in Missouri — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:52:22 +0000

The EPA is a rogue criminal organization that is no where authorized in the Constitution to exists much less to write law. The word treasonous comes to mind when I think of the EPA that stole the only land that I have even owned. The gallows would be too good for these traitors to every concept of liberty.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:03:20 +0000

The so called “EPA” isn’t doing anything. An individual is and that individual needs to be dealt with one way or another. Where is the mafia when you need them?

By: StrangeOne

StrangeOne — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:11:32 +0000

So the EPA has to seek judicial enforcement before anyone is required by law to actually stop? Build anyways. I think it would be fun for the feds to argue in court that the .63 acre lot in a suburb is a protected wetland, but the other houses, roads, and structures aren’t. Let the fines rack up. Years later they can let the EPA explain to a judge how building a house did 2 million dollars in damage to a non-existent wetland.

I know this sounds naive, but lets be honest a callous and unaccountable government agency has decided to fuck them. They aren’t getting out of this easy. The EPA through sheer government arrogance is beyond a sensible response. The only prayer these people have is to let the EPA be soooooo stupid that the first judge who gets to see this will throw the whole damn thing out. By the EPA’s own admission that could take years. In the meantime the house is built and they live in it, maybe, hopefully.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:47:26 +0000

“Once you understand that you owe your existence to The State…”

This is truer than you think BamBam. Because of the multiplying effect that State policies have on population, there are billions of people on Earth that would not have been born if not for State interference in economics, therefore those people actually do owe their existence to the State.

While I believe that Earth can support a human population of 7 billion, and possibly more, whether that number of people is healthy for the human race is another question. In this mechanized age, I don’t see the need for that many people. If I see it, I’m willing to bet that TPTB can see it too and have for quite some time.

My ultimate point is that the State, by adjusting its policies, can determine human population at will, by both addition and subtraction. In this modern era, unless you can find some Galt’s Gulch (good luck!), just about all of us (except maybe the 0.01%) exist at the whim of the State.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 06:06:00 +0000

The pursuit of coercive power over others will someday be universally recognized as a symptom of profound mental illness.
– L. Neil Smith, http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle527-20090712-02.html

That day can’t arrive soon enough.

By: Troy

Troy — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:39:27 +0000

The whole problem started when SCOTUS allowed Congress and the Executive to delegate their authority. The whole fucking point of the constitution is to delegate authority. And once the fucking legal wizards have determined, using the grand intellectual force of “legal reasoning”, that the constitution can delegate what was not delegated, the story is over. I mean fuck, the whole point of the constitution is to say, “dude, only YOU can do these list of things.” To which the courts have interpreted, “dude, Anyone can exercise these powers, and any others and we won’ stop them.”

By: the innominate one

the innominate one — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:14:27 +0000

Goober – wetlands, both in a biological sense and a legal sense, are not necessarily inundated with water 100% of the time. that said, the EPA shouldn’t be allowed to do want it wants without judicial review.

By: BamBam

BamBam — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:58:14 +0000

In most cases one can replace the word RIGHT with PRIVILEGE. Once you understand that you owe your existence to The State (as organized and enforced by OTHER HUMANS, meaning you are a lower class/subservient slave), then you will understand that matters are operating as expected.

There is no such thing as private property if you have property taxes. You are simply the renter from The State of said property.

By: Goober

Goober — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:33:21 +0000

I’m not so sure I wouldn’t build the sonofabitch and tell them to come get me. There is a line that has to be drawn at some time, and I’m afraid that a government organization effectively dictating to me what I can do with my private property using liens and rules that weren’t on the title when I bought the place would cross that line. Let ‘em come.

The EPA doesn’t have the nuts to create a Ruby Ridge situation over a mistaken property classification (BTW, I’ve been to the property in question and i assure you that the classification is in error. This is not a wetland. If it is, then the houses on either side of the lot are all built on the same wetland – is is very surprisingly un-wet. So is the road. Both of them). So I’d be tempted to just tell them, al’la Ken at Popehat, to snort my taint and be done with it.

By: Omar

Omar — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:23:56 +0000

I don’t see how gays rights have been curtailed though. Do explain that one.

Homosexuality used to be illegal in these states. Sodomy laws, discrimination, sex toy bans, etc. Just because things are getting better for teh geh today dosen’t mean their rights haven’t been curtailed in the past.

Z seems to be making a parallel between the lost rights of property owners and other groups on the receiving end of oppression. As Trivial or brutal the different cases may be, oppression always comes from a lack of basic respect for the rights of others.

Z is reminding you to remember to always be offended at legal injustice.

Schaudenfreud is fun until it happens to you.

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:34:47 +0000

A gay guy has the same right to marry a woman as I do.

By: Difster

Difster — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:12:54 +0000

Z – You have it backwards. The curtailing of rights in general is because of a lack of understanding and/or respect for the Constitution. No one’s rights are safe.

I don’t see how gays rights have been curtailed though. Do explain that one. Though I don’t see why anyone should have a particular set of rights based on who they are having sex with.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:09:50 +0000

I’m sorry what part of “we can send the military to your house to capture you and lock you in a secret prison for the rest of your life” don’t the Sacketts understand? Judicial review? Hah.

By: BamBam

BamBam — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:55:46 +0000

Radley, you can call this “The Second Set of Books” AKA “regulatory law” AKA “laws and policies that have force of law because no one is allowed to challenge the process by which this policy is established and enacted”.

By: Z

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:55:16 +0000

According to Kelo, they don’t have rights. Btw, this is a natural consequence of allowing the rights of
criminals and immigrants and gays to be curtailed.
Schaudenfreud is fun until it happens to you.

By: claude

claude — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:46:54 +0000

“The Constitution doesn’t grant the Federal government the power to have an EPA.”

Oh yes there should.

“Even so, what gives the EPA the right to determine what is wet lands except on FEDERAL property? Nothing! Let them make recommendations but it should have no regulatory power within the states.”

When pollution learns to stop at state borders, perhaps.