Trump pardons ranchers

[sirbob]

Trump pardons ranchers in case that inspired 2016 occupation

https://dailym.ai/2L6xRUn

• President Donald Trump pardoned two ranchers whose case sparked an armed occupation of federal land
• Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted on arson charges in 2012
• Ammon Bundy and dozens of others occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in protest
• Court dispute over five-year mandatory minimum sentences which were upheld
• White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said there was 'fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land'
• Called the Hammonds 'devoted family men'

 

[Blackmagic94]

Good. Fuck BLM

 

[RodnJen]

The fire "leaked"? Awesome.


...were convicted of setting a fire in 2001 that consumed 139 acres of federal land, according to the Justice Department, which said the blaze covered up evidence of their illegal deer hunting. Steven Hammond later set a second fire in 2006; they were prosecuted for both fires in a 2012 jury trial.

 

[ArizonaKevin]

While the BLM situation in 2012 was screwed up on the part of our government, from what I've seen, these guys don't appear to be first class citizens.

 

[Uncle Dave]

They arent.they are pushing it for sure.

The other fire that leaked was the BLM fire they set with no regard to the livestock that burned the Bundies cattle alive.

Then they tried to cover up their crimes by burying the evidence.

When confronted the BLM claim the cattle lack human interaction and are "mean" and have to be dealt with.

Id like to see the tables turned on these clowns for animal cruelty at min.

UD

 

[RiverDave]

The fire "leaked"? Awesome.


...were convicted of setting a fire in 2001 that consumed 139 acres of federal land, according to the Justice Department, which said the blaze covered up evidence of their illegal deer hunting. Steven Hammond later set a second fire in 2006; they were prosecuted for both fires in a 2012 jury trial.

You know the BLM burned a shitload of their land as well, burned their cattle alive, and a host of other illegal things..

The BLM wants their land and have been trying for years to forcefully kick them off of it.

 

[wsuwrhr]

Classic overzealous fed gov overreach.

MAGA.

 

[2Driver]

Good first move now Trump needs to keep his promise to drain the swamp and make the BLM a 10 man department

 

[SKIDMARC]

BLM?? What does that stand for?

 

[RiverDave]

Good first move now Trump needs to keep his promise to drain the swamp and make the BLM a 10 man department

I think he should revamp it entirely and make the public lands available to the public! Lol. I have never understood the motivation behind closing trails and these large land grabs.. nor have I understood why the government owns 85% of AZ / NV and most of everything west of the Mississippi

 

[DRYHEAT]

You know the BLM burned a shitload of their land as well, burned their cattle alive, and a host of other illegal things..

The BLM wants their land and have been trying for years to forcefully kick them off of it.

Classic overzealous fed gov overreach.

MAGA.

Come on guys our government would never do anything like that they’re only here to help

BLM?? What does that stand for?

Bureau of land management. Or as I like to call it bureau of western land monopolization

 

[Rvrluvr]

BLM?? What does that stand for?

bureau of land management

 

[SBMech]

BLM?? What does that stand for?

Bureau of Land Managment.

Aka Buttfuckers Love Money.

 

[rush1]

 

[Ziggy]

bureau of land management

I thought he had a punchline answer for his own question.
Lol, I didn't think he was asking seriously

 

[RodnJen]

You know the BLM burned a shitload of their land as well, burned their cattle alive, and a host of other illegal things..

The BLM wants their land and have been trying for years to forcefully kick them off of it.

As read in the Washington Standard? I don't know if the BLM did or didn't but is doesn't change the fact that they were tried and convicted, taking a plea no less to avoid further charges.

Was it really their land that was allegedly burned or was it land as part of a treaty that they repeatedly violated? Nobody is excusing the actions of the Fed, if there was actually overreach. However, it doesn't grant permission for the actions of the ranchers either.

 

[81eliminator]

I think he should revamp it entirely and make the public lands available to the public! Lol. I have never understood the motivation behind closing trails and these large land grabs.. nor have I understood why the government owns 85% of AZ / NV and most of everything west of the Mississippi

by Law the Government is not allowed to own land except military bases and government offices.
how are they allowed to buy up ranch land ?
The BLM has tried to pull the imminent domain trick in texas which has little or no BLM land.
when you find out they are taking away the land we race on, it is usually to protect some politicians investment. (Diane Fienstien)

 

[81eliminator]

As read in the Washington Standard? I don't know if the BLM did or didn't but is doesn't change the fact that they were tried and convicted, taking a plea no less to avoid further charges.

Was it really their land that was allegedly burned or was it land as part of a treaty that they repeatedly violated? Nobody is excusing the actions of the Fed, if there was actually overreach. However, it doesn't grant permission for the actions of the ranchers either.

News said they set a small back fire to protect their pasture from a fire.

 

[RiverDave]

As read in the Washington Standard? I don't know if the BLM did or didn't but is doesn't change the fact that they were tried and convicted, taking a plea no less to avoid further charges.

Was it really their land that was allegedly burned or was it land as part of a treaty that they repeatedly violated? Nobody is excusing the actions of the Fed, if there was actually overreach. However, it doesn't grant permission for the actions of the ranchers either.

Rod the harassment these people have put up with for decades is pretty unbelievable.. That BLM has set several fires in the past that jumped onto their property with virtually no recourse. They had it happen this time and were tried for arson..

During that stand off the government flat tried to kill all of them in that truck. They lit that thing up like a damn christmas tree, and I'm amazed nobody was killed except for Lavoy.. Which was a straight up execution.

RD

 

[Cdog]

I think he should revamp it entirely and make the public lands available to the public! Lol. I have never understood the motivation behind closing trails and these large land grabs.. nor have I understood why the government owns 85% of AZ / NV and most of everything west of the Mississippi

Auction off 50% of the land to private citizens. Use those funds towards the national debt.

 

[Spectra18]

Cause maybe those parts of the land are too much outta the way for Police to patrol and hand out tickets and DUI arrests. I don’t know if am being dumb, but can a American go off to the middle of NO WHERE smoke his smoke, drink his beer, and drive around in whatever they want around open land. After all if I hurt myself , fuck it , I died doing something I loved. Better then seeing my grandma in the convalescent home. She should died gambling. LOVE YOU GRANDMA !!! ( too bad she didn’t leave me any money =

I think he should revamp it entirely and make the public lands available to the public! Lol. I have never understood the motivation behind closing trails and these large land grabs.. nor have I understood why the government owns 85% of AZ / NV and most of everything west of the Mississippi

 

[wallnutz]

It’s to bad most of us work a lot of hours, or we could set up a protest like the left is doing to ICE to abolish the BLM.

 

[81eliminator]

Rod the harassment these people have put up with for decades is pretty unbelievable.. That BLM has set several fires in the past that jumped onto their property with virtually no recourse. They had it happen this time and were tried for arson..

During that stand off the government flat tried to kill all of them in that truck. They lit that thing up like a damn christmas tree, and I'm amazed nobody was killed except for Lavoy.. Which was a straight up execution.

RD

wern't they tried and released for time served or probation, then the Government told the judge that the penalty was 5 years minimum and over ruled the judge?

 

[81eliminator]

the whole thing was BS! the BLM wanted the water on their land to expand a wildlife area. they didn't want to sell so the BLM tried to ruin their business by burning the land so it was useless to them.

 

[River Lynchmob]

As read in the Washington Standard? I don't know if the BLM did or didn't but is doesn't change the fact that they were tried and convicted, taking a plea no less to avoid further charges.

Was it really their land that was allegedly burned or was it land as part of a treaty that they repeatedly violated? Nobody is excusing the actions of the Fed, if there was actually overreach. However, it doesn't grant permission for the actions of the ranchers either.

They were tried and convicted. The conviction had a 5 year minimum sentence. The presiding judge said that they we good family people and levied a much less sentence. The Feds appealed it and enforced the 5 year min. The dad is 78 and has served over 3 years the son is 49 and has served 4. In any other sentence they would have been out in 2.5 for good behavior. The BLM straight strong armed these guys with no recourse for them. Screw the BLM! An unelected bureaucracy that makes, enforces and prosecutes its own laws with zero checks and balances and almost no recourse.

 

[Instigator]

Auction off 50% of the land to private citizens. Use those funds towards the national debt.

And make sure that a requirement is that the property is to be personally held by a US Citizen too!

 

[530RL]

by Law the Government is not allowed to own land except military bases and government offices.
how are they allowed to buy up ranch land ?
The BLM has tried to pull the imminent domain trick in texas which has little or no BLM land.
when you find out they are taking away the land we race on, it is usually to protect some politicians investment. (Diane Fienstien)

With all due respect I would like to quote the Constitution in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. They make you memorize this shit in class......

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In simpler words, the Constitution specifically provides that Congress may make laws where both the federal government as well as states may own land within the United States. And Congress has done so.

Further, if the US Government was not allowed to own land, the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, 1818 Red River Valley Purchase, 1819 Florida Purchase, 1845 Texas Annexation, 1846 Oregon Treaty, 1848 Mexican Cessation, 1853 Gadsen Purchase, and the 1867 Alaska Purchase would all be invalid contracts as the US government as the buyer, had no authority to make these purchases and as such, we would be a pretty tiny Country and would not be arguing over building a wall, as the federal government would not legally own any of that land as they were purchases made by the Federal Government.......

In any event, I wonder how one figures out which of the 2.3 million people in prison in America today deserves a pardon or commutation and who does not. Guess it pays to have friends in high places. Same as it has always been I guess.

 

[530RL]

They were tried and convicted. The conviction had a 5 year minimum sentence. The presiding judge said that they we good family people and levied a much less sentence. The Feds appealed it and enforced the 5 year min. The dad is 78 and has served over 3 years the son is 49 and has served 4. In any other sentence they would have been out in 2.5 for good behavior. The BLM straight strong armed these guys with no recourse for them. Screw the BLM! An unelected bureaucracy that makes, enforces and prosecutes its own laws with zero checks and balances and almost no recourse.

The BLM is under the Department of the Interior managed by the Executive Branch. The President of the Untied States, Donald Trump, ultimately runs the BLM, no different than any other executive agency..........

 

[rmarion]

Come on everyone...WTF is the issue.... we all know the Desert Tortoise, Desert Rat and Milk Vetch plant need all that land to survive.....

Those smart MFers running (RUINING) our Government, know what's best for EVERYONE...... they have the crystal ball and can look at the BIG PICTURE.

Big Government, shut down all MC riding areas, shut down all Boating waterways....

they'll still use (steal) all our License fees, Green/Red stickers is supplement the Park Rangers required to police all these activities......

Now, no more recreational offroad activities...

oooh..... they don't use all these fees (millions of revenues) for those 74 employees........ hmmm. What do they do with the excess $$$$$

How are they gonna replace those fees now??... no problem just higher taxes....



In History Class...do they still teach "Boston Tea Party"...

 

[River Lynchmob]

The BLM is under the Department of the Interior managed by the Executive Branch. The President of the Untied States, Donald Trump, ultimately runs the BLM, no different than any other executive agency..........

I am aware of all of this. This happened under Obama's watch and Trump, to me, has righted a wrong.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

The BLM is under the Department of the Interior managed by the Executive Branch. The President of the Untied States ultimately runs that bureaucracy, no different than any other executive agency..........

And therein lies the answer to the rhetorical question you posed about bias regarding who deserves pardons and who does not. The President is trying to correct a wrong that was perpetrated under an agency within his control. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I am aware of all of this. This happened under Obama's watch and Trump, to me, has righted a wrong.

In today’s episode of “As The Pretzel Twists”...

 

[81eliminator]

With all due respect I would like to quote the Constitution in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. They make you memorize this shit in class......

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In simpler words, the Constitution specifically provides that Congress may make laws where both the federal government as well as states may own land within the United States. And Congress has done so.

Further, if the US Government was not allowed to own land, the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, 1818 Red River Valley Purchase, 1819 Florida Purchase, 1845 Texas Annexation, 1846 Oregon Treaty, 1848 Mexican Cessation, 1853 Gadsen Purchase, and the 1867 Alaska Purchase would all be invalid contracts as the US government as the buyer, had no authority to make these purchases and as such, we would be a pretty tiny Country and would not be arguing over building a wall, as the federal government would not legally own any of that land as they were purchases made by the Federal Government.......

In any event, I wonder how one figures out which of the 2.3 million people in prison in America today deserves a pardon or commutation and who does not. Guess it pays to have friends in high places. Same as it has always been I guess.

check out Article 1, section 8 paragraph 17, how does it apply?

 

[hallett21]

check out Article 1, section 8 paragraph 17, how does it apply?

“Which is not specifically stated by this constitution” I think would allow you to round back to 530’s initial reference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MSum661]

Rod the harassment these people have put up with for decades is pretty unbelievable.. That BLM has set several fires in the past that jumped onto their property with virtually no recourse. They had it happen this time and were tried for arson..

During that stand off the government flat tried to kill all of them in that truck. They lit that thing up like a damn christmas tree, and I'm amazed nobody was killed except for Lavoy.. Which was a straight up execution.

RD

They drove right into a staged choke stop and I believe it would be fair to say Lavoy was flat out ambushed.

 

[SKIDMARC]

Come on guys our government would never do anything like that they’re only here to help

Bureau of land management. Or as I like to call it bureau of western land monopolization

Oh ok..

 

[Danger Dave]

 

[TPC]

A win against the BLM.

 

[milkmoney]

BLM SUCKS [emoji107] [emoji107] [emoji202]

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[RVR SWPR]

Trump will never "Drop the Mic"

 

[boatdoc55]

As read in the Washington Standard? I don't know if the BLM did or didn't but is doesn't change the fact that they were tried and convicted, taking a plea no less to avoid further charges.

Was it really their land that was allegedly burned or was it land as part of a treaty that they repeatedly violated? Nobody is excusing the actions of the Fed, if there was actually overreach. However, it doesn't grant permission for the actions of the ranchers either.

The BLM has been fucking with the ranchers in Oregon since they were formed. Living there for 25 years it was an everyday occurrence, them SOB screwing with some rancher just trying to get by and doing so for decades. Leave the ranchers alone!!!!!!

 

[boatdoc55]

Come on everyone...WTF is the issue.... we all know the Desert Tortoise, Desert Rat and Milk Vetch plant need all that land to survive.....

Those smart MFers running (RUINING) our Government, know what's best for EVERYONE...... they have the crystal ball and can look at the BIG PICTURE.

Big Government, shut down all MC riding areas, shut down all Boating waterways....

they'll still use (steal) all our License fees, Green/Red stickers is supplement the Park Rangers required to police all these activities......

Now, no more recreational offroad activities...

oooh..... they don't use all these fees (millions of revenues) for those 74 employees........ hmmm. What do they do with the excess $$$$$

How are they gonna replace those fees now??... no problem just higher taxes....



In History Class...do they still teach "Boston Tea Party"...

Some one has to pay those 125% pensions That RodnJen promote!!!

 

[2Driver]

In one way or another, all paths lead to money.

 

[530RL]

check out Article 1, section 8 paragraph 17, how does it apply?

Fair question. Long answer that most probably will not want to read.....

Although such paragraph needs to be taken in context of the entirety of Article 1, Section 8 that enumerates a non-exclusive list of Congressional powers, that specific paragraph 17 says:

"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."

Nothing in that paragraph precludes the Federal government from owning land in a state, it just says that in certain federal assets, Congress has a right to "exercise exclusive legislation". It also says that the federal government needs permission of the state to buy certain state assets.

As a matter of factual history, the federal government owned much of the land as a federal asset prior to many states becoming states, and once they became states, such federally owned land does not, and is not required by the Constitution, to be passed in title to such state. As a result, we as a Country have a lot of federally owned lands in Western States as the Federal Government owned the land before such states became states. Although Congress did grant large tracts of Federal land to states when they became states, they did not grant "all" federal lands and assets to states.

There is some misunderstanding on the internet with respect to what is known as Texas 2000 which was a proposed new Texas State Constitution that was never ratified. And in that state document, which was never ratified, there was a section:

"The Federal Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and grazing areas without the consent of the State where same is located."

But that is not contained in the US Constitution. In any event, even if passed, such provision in a state constitution would be contradictory to the US Constitution and as a result the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would come into effect which states

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So even if Texas or any other state passed such law or new State Constitution precluding federal ownership of certain lands, they are not legally entitled by the US Constitution to simply take Federal lands or force the Federal government to give them such lands.

Bottom line, I completely agree with you that the federal government has way too much power and courts, both liberal and conservative, continue to expand the powers of the federal government through the "Necessary and Proper" as well as the "Commerce and General Welfare" clauses contained in Section 8 at the expense of states rights and our individual freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, although the BLM may be another fucked up federal agency that manages such federal assets, it is very clear that the federal government does own them, can own them and can manage them through Congressional authority to be carried out by the Executive Branch.

But your point that these lands, as well as most of government is managed like shit is simply a fact. And with that I completely agree.

 

[81eliminator]

Fair question. Long answer that most probably will not want to read.....

Although such paragraph needs to be taken in context of the entirety of Article 1, Section 8 that enumerates a non-exclusive list of Congressional powers, that specific paragraph 17 says:

"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."

Nothing in that paragraph precludes the Federal government from owning land in a state, it just says that in certain federal assets, Congress has a right to "exercise exclusive legislation". It also says that the federal government needs permission of the state to buy certain state assets.

As a matter of factual history, the federal government owned much of the land as a federal asset prior to many states becoming states, and once they became states, such federally owned land does not, and is not required by the Constitution, to be passed in title to such state. As a result, we as a Country have a lot of federally owned lands in Western States as the Federal Government owned the land before such states became states. Although Congress did grant large tracts of Federal land to states when they became states, they did not grant "all" federal lands and assets to states.

There is some misunderstanding on the internet with respect to what is known as Texas 2000 which was a proposed new Texas State Constitution that was never ratified. And in that state document, which was never ratified, there was a section:

"The Federal Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and grazing areas without the consent of the State where same is located."

But that is not contained in the US Constitution. In any event, even if passed, such provision in a state constitution would be contradictory to the US Constitution and as a result the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would come into effect which states

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So even if Texas or any other state passed such law or new State Constitution precluding federal ownership of certain lands, they are not legally entitled by the US Constitution to simply take Federal lands or force the Federal government to give them such lands.

Bottom line, I completely agree with you that the federal government has way too much power and courts, both liberal and conservative, continue to expand the powers of the federal government through the "Necessary and Proper" as well as the "Commerce and General Welfare" clauses contained in Section 8 at the expense of states rights and our individual freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, although the BLM may be another fucked up federal agency that manages such federal assets, it is very clear that the federal government does own them, can own them and can manage them through Congressional authority to be carried out by the Executive Branch.

But your point that these lands, as well as most of government is managed like shit is simply a fact. And with that I completely agree.

Thanks for the education(sincerely) another problem we have is government agencies making the laws they use to govern their piece of the pie. Isn't congress the only ones that are supposed to make laws? Our own DMV, BLM, EPA etc. all make up laws and enforce them with out approval from congress or state legislators, right?

 

[Go-Fly]

Good.

 

[YOLO]

My family has had the unwelcome pleasure of having to fight the government, private interest groups, and combined efforts (yes you read that right) to be the demise of my families rights and way of life. We have fought various government and private extremists and won time and time again.


The challenge of the public land users is that there are special interest groups that spend 100% of there time pursuing their goal while the user is trying to figure out how to continue to run his or her business and then defend themselves from an onslaught of legal challenges. With business margins and time that is already thin it is almost impossible for most to fight a war on two fronts. Most fold and move on with life. Giving up generations of tradition and hard work. Yielding a win for special interest groups and their pocketbooks. Yes, I went there. It’s a business, don’t believe it’s anything more. The special interest groups win 80% of their lawsuits. Guess who pays for their fees when they successfully defend the latest endangered species. You and I, the taxpayers. Lucrative business and an easy one to sell to the public. Fear is the second easiest thing to sell.


Making examples of people that resist is the best way to ensure success moving forward. Most have a viable defense yet lack the time and funds to defend themselves. My family has fortunately not backed down. There are a few times our situations could have turned south in a hurry. Government agents with an agenda and/or close ties with a politically motivated group can be a great challenge to people that have purchased “rights” to use, nurture, and harvest renewable natural resources from public lands. Yes I still use the words rights. Most documents have replaced the word right with the word privilege. Some families have spent generations improving public lands while running a business. The govt has provided a framework to allow those that improve the land to “own” those improvements that add value to the land. In many instances the value of those improvements are being stripped away. It is a taking in the truest form of the word. That is what people are fighting over. The governments are bound to use public lands for the highest and best use. There is much debate about what that is. In my view if you want to change the way your neighbor is managing his business get your checkbook out. The special interest groups are sometimes using the government to run people out of business or limit access to push an agenda while getting paid to do it. It’s bullshit!

My family has fought this corruption through two landmark lawsuits. One against the Forest Service/United States of America (which we won in the ninth circuit court of appeals) and one against the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. The first case was a case predicated on the “potential habitat” of a long nosed bat. We proved collusion between the government and SW Center via emails to rid our operation of the grazing right we possessed. We won. Cost us lots of money we have no right to recover! Bullshit if you ask me. SW Center got pissed off and drummed up a defamatory campaign to try and block the renewal of our grazing right. We sued for defamation and won! Yes, the jury voted 10-0 that they were acting with an evil mind! Benevolent bunny huggers they are! Cost us way more than damages received. They are now renamed the Center for Biological Diversity because of that case and 4 of their head honchos have judgments against them. They had to regroup and rename because they could not acquire the required litigation insurance after that fiasco. One tried to move back to his home country of Australia to get away from it. We followed him there and got a judgment applied against him there as well.

In my opinion government agencies are out of control as many of the people that are running them have personal agendas and using the powers of their positions to enforce them. It always comes down to a person and/or group with an agenda. An agenda that they want to promote without having to pay for. I don’t always agree with the tactics used by those oppressed but sure understand why they are fighting back.

 

[530RL]

Thanks for the education(sincerely) another problem we have is government agencies making the laws they use to govern their piece of the pie. Isn't congress the only ones that are supposed to make laws? Our own DMV, BLM, EPA etc. all make up laws and enforce them with out approval from congress or state legislators, right?

I'll stay general to keep political views out of this.

At the federal level, Congress writes laws. Unfortunately Congress can not write a law that covers all the possible permutations that exist and will come up when implementing the law.

So, the executive branch, specifically agencies such as you list, write regulations to enforce the law as passed by Congress.

For example, the tax reform act is 600 pages, but the tax code is about 74,000 pages and the reason it is so many pages is that the IRS has to enforce and write regulations to deal with every single transaction that might arise from the changes in the new tax code. They have to write, for lack of a better term, "rules" of what, where, when and why a specific provision of the legislation relates to a specific transaction.

Or as another example, Congress writes "No Child Left Behind" that includes a requirement to measure achievement, but the Department of Education writes how to measure achievement in such legislation, or goal in the legislation, and the politicking begins on how to implement the Legislation of measuring achievement.

So although it appears that the executive branch "agencies" are making up laws, unfortunately, their job is to implement with regulations the Legislation and as a result, they have a lot of power.

What might surprise most people is that the vast majority of mundane government agency business court cases do not revolve around the Constitutionality of the Legislation written by Congress itself (a check on the Legislative branch), but litigation around whether or not the agencies regulations and implementation of such regulations are consistent with the "intent" of the Legislation (a check on the executive branch). For example, did that clever re-incroporation in Ireland get me around certain taxes. Or does transfer pricing from my US subsidiary to my foreign subsidiary illegally evade or legally avoid US taxes? All that can not be covered in the "legislation" so the agencies write rules or regulations.

At the state level, it depends upon the state constitution but the practice is basically the same. In Arizona the legislature writes laws, but agencies write "rules" that implement the laws and such rules are approved by the Governor's administration (the executive branch). And when there is a dispute in Arizona with an agency and you go to an administrative law judge (the judicial branch), the "rules" matter more than the text of the law.

So the legal answer to your question is no, the agencies (the executive branch) are not making up laws, they are writing regulations to implement the Legislative act.

But now we go to the political side. The answer to your question is yes that executive branches, as they come and go, write and re-write regulations and rules more favorable to their political views even without a change to the Legislation itself. And the courts, but more importantly the voters are there to keep a check on such different views of interpretation.

Something to consider is that the vast majority of lobbying is not spent on candidates running for office, but on executive branch agencies both federal and state. And that should answer your question clearly. Being the head of a federal agency, or the chief counsel, or head of a division of a powerful agency has vastly more power over the citizens than any federal or state legislator, governor or president.

Something else to consider is that some of they dysfunction people in America complain about was specifically designed into the system. As a Republic, neither Senators nor Representatives have a duty to do the best thing for the Country. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but besides that their designed job by the founding fathers was to do what is best for their specific state or district.

Lastly, yes it sounds pretty fucked up, but to date it seems to be better than other systems. The problem is that the system was designed for a weak federal government and strong state governments but that has sort of gone away.

If you are really interested in this stuff and want to be completely confused as I am, read the federalist papers. Specifically read #10.

 

[Blackmagic94]

I heard rumors that Harry Reid wanted the land for some cough friends cough to build more solar bullshit cough solandra cough

 

[Blackmagic94]

I heard rumors that Harry Reid wanted the land for some cough friends cough to build more solar bullshit cough solandra cough