5 ms·

From FAA.gov: > We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation. https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities

From FAA.gov: > We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation. https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities Maybe the people responsible are the people who say they’re responsible?

bobthepanda 3y ago
The FAA gets authorized by Congress. Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate, so can override executive agencies like the grandparent describes.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sircastor 3y ago
    I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post. It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        >>It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s. If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it... But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        I mean if you don't want to be federally regulated for air travel, you can just fly intrastate. Southwest famously operated like this in the pre-deregulation era and became the poster child for federal airline deregulation. Though I don't think anyone is dumb enough to risk reputational suicide by flying a grounded plane intrastate.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Yes that giant truck hole opened by Wickard that has become a catch all that means the federal government can regulated anything However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#article-1-section-1 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar.... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3... > The Constitution gives Congress substantial power to establish federal government offices. As an initial matter, the Constitution vests the legislative power in Congress.1 Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers.2 The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise of its more specific authorities.3 The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices.4 Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives.5 The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.6
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional. Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article 1 as to them "Necessary and Proper Clause" makes everything congress deems " Necessary and Proper Clause" to be constitution, a moronic interpretation of the Constitution who's entire purpose was to limit federal power. The current court is set to role back some of that, I hope it does but it is unlikely they will go as far I want them to... Which includes going all the way back and reversing Wickard v. Filburn and every decision that built off that wrong.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional. It's a partisan assertion of a narrow political group, not generally accepted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the assertion, but to say it's somehow a truth generally acknowledged is false.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    The Supremacy clause reserves no rights for the people. Only for states. Only a state can challenge a law based on the Supremacy clause.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedent over state laws. The Tenth Amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people at large. The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of some rights does not mean people don't have other, unenumerated rights.
      - Guvante 3y ago
        No ruling aligns with this interpretation from any court opinion. Nor would such an opinion apply to corporations. You do not get "rights" which are the ability to ignore federal law because you decided the federal government wasn't allowed to do something. The only successful challenges have been based on enumerated rights outside of states sueing based on the tenth.
Guvante 3y ago
So if the FAA works with Boeing to fix a safety issue and Congress overrides FAA on the implementation we should blame the FAA. Why?
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  Because the FAA is "responsible for the safety of civil aviation." They don't get to say that, and accept tax monies for that, and then throw up their hands when someone else tries to block them from doing their job. The director (or whoever heads the agency) should have resigned, alongwith the entire rest of the management. Instead of being content with letting someone else take the blame when the next accident claims 100s of lives. Imagine if you were tasked with making sure that your app's customer's data were safe. Your boss goes against your recommendation and does something you know will put sensitive data in the hands of hackers. What would you do?
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Obviously the best thing that the FAA could do is remove all upper management from being able to do their jobs...

bobthepanda 3y ago

The FAA gets authorized by Congress. Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate, so can override executive agencies like the grandparent describes.

phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
- sircastor 3y ago
  I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post. It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      >>It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s. If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it... But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        I mean if you don't want to be federally regulated for air travel, you can just fly intrastate. Southwest famously operated like this in the pre-deregulation era and became the poster child for federal airline deregulation. Though I don't think anyone is dumb enough to risk reputational suicide by flying a grounded plane intrastate.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Yes that giant truck hole opened by Wickard that has become a catch all that means the federal government can regulated anything However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#article-1-section-1 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar.... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3... > The Constitution gives Congress substantial power to establish federal government offices. As an initial matter, the Constitution vests the legislative power in Congress.1 Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers.2 The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise of its more specific authorities.3 The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices.4 Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives.5 The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.6
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional. Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article 1 as to them "Necessary and Proper Clause" makes everything congress deems " Necessary and Proper Clause" to be constitution, a moronic interpretation of the Constitution who's entire purpose was to limit federal power. The current court is set to role back some of that, I hope it does but it is unlikely they will go as far I want them to... Which includes going all the way back and reversing Wickard v. Filburn and every decision that built off that wrong.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional. It's a partisan assertion of a narrow political group, not generally accepted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the assertion, but to say it's somehow a truth generally acknowledged is false.
- Guvante 3y ago
  The Supremacy clause reserves no rights for the people. Only for states. Only a state can challenge a law based on the Supremacy clause.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedent over state laws. The Tenth Amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people at large. The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of some rights does not mean people don't have other, unenumerated rights.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      No ruling aligns with this interpretation from any court opinion. Nor would such an opinion apply to corporations. You do not get "rights" which are the ability to ignore federal law because you decided the federal government wasn't allowed to do something. The only successful challenges have been based on enumerated rights outside of states sueing based on the tenth.

Guvante 3y ago

So if the FAA works with Boeing to fix a safety issue and Congress overrides FAA on the implementation we should blame the FAA. Why?

perryizgr8 3y ago
Because the FAA is "responsible for the safety of civil aviation." They don't get to say that, and accept tax monies for that, and then throw up their hands when someone else tries to block them from doing their job. The director (or whoever heads the agency) should have resigned, alongwith the entire rest of the management. Instead of being content with letting someone else take the blame when the next accident claims 100s of lives. Imagine if you were tasked with making sure that your app's customer's data were safe. Your boss goes against your recommendation and does something you know will put sensitive data in the hands of hackers. What would you do?
- Guvante 3y ago
  Obviously the best thing that the FAA could do is remove all upper management from being able to do their jobs...