[net.auto] If you could save lives, would

ayers@convexs.UUCP (09/12/85)

In reference to the fed's witholding state funds for non-
complience to 55 mph speed limit:

>...Congress passed the law, and it can remove it...


According to the information I have, this is NOT a "law" but
a DOT "ruling" -- which means Congress never voted it in and 
cannot remove it!




				blues, II

	(I may not be wrong, but by _God_, I'll bet I'm not far from it!)

levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (09/18/85)

In article <5800024@convexs>, ayers@convexs.UUCP writes:
>In reference to the fed's witholding state funds for non-
>complience to 55 mph speed limit:
>
>>...Congress passed the law, and it can remove it...
>
>According to the information I have, this is NOT a "law" but
>a DOT "ruling" -- which means Congress never voted it in and
>cannot remove it!
>
>				blues, II

C'mon, Congress can have no say in the matter?  So we back off one more
level--it established the DOT, and it can change the rules under which it
operates.  (Though it may not wish to do so.)  It just makes it a bit harder,
that's all.

Bureaucracy is devolution in action.
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the
| at&t computer systems division |  s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
                                      or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy

ayers@convexs.UUCP (09/20/85)

>>>...Congress passed the law, and it can remove it...
>>
>>According to the information I have, this is NOT a "law" but
>>a DOT "ruling" -- which means Congress never voted it in and
>>cannot remove it!
>>
>>				blues, II
>
>C'mon, Congress can have no say in the matter?  So we back off one more
>level--it established the DOT, and it can change the rules under which it
>operates.  (Though it may not wish to do so.)  It just makes it a bit harder,
>that's all.


Oooppppsss!  What I _meant_ to say was: "Congress never voted it in and 
therefore cannot `vote' it out."  You are, of course, correct [damn it]...
The point was that this whole thing is being shoved down our throats (along 
with all the other DOT rulings) without ANY representation.  Time for a 
"tea party."


(And they said to me "You've lost your mind!" 
   and I said "No I haven't, I just can't 
       remember where I left it...")




					B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)
						 B~)
						 B~)
					   B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)
						 B~)
						 B~)
					B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)B~)
					B~)		  B~)
					B~) B~)B~)B~)B~)  B~)
					B~)	      /	  B~)
					B~)		  B~)
					B~) B~)B~)B~)B~)  B~)
					B~)	      /	  B~)
					B~)		  ;-)