Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that

On Feb 11, 5:08 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:47 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 11, 2:31 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

-snip for brevity-
    The rule is intended to apply to groups of 75 or more people that
have requested use

To 'request use' is, perforce, to acknowledge a claim of authority to
prohibit use as being valid.  While such act lends a *color of
validity* to the Permit scheme, it cannot superceed Statute.  The
original Act of Congrass under Teddy Roosveldt, circa 1898, that
formed the National Forest System, and which has never been amended or
repealed, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS administrative rules which prohibit
entry into the forests.

of a certain area for a noncommercial activity. The
rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp
in the same area, even if they intend to camp far apart from each
other.

How "far apart"?  What constitutes a "group"?  Whoever wrote this is
stupidity incarnate.

Sanity

Don't kill the messenger! "stupidity incarnate", that's a good one.
Might well fit the whole federal level of the FS.

Your stating that, "The original Act of Congrass under Teddy
Roosveldt, circa 1898, that
formed the National Forest System, and which has never been amended or
repealed, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS administrative rules which prohibit
entry into the forests", should have been brought before the appeals
court back when the Pennsylvania three where fighting their case if
not sooner.

SP had all that data. I know he did because I put copies of it all in
his hands personally, TWICE.
Regardless, the proclivity of the judiciary to equivocate the First
Amendments strictures into a nullity, via sophistry, tells me the US
Constitution is nothing more than a cultural icon without empirical
force or effect. Even if the proviso wasn't there the First Amendment
is spoz'ta superceede attempts at abridging the right of peaceable
assembly.....
.
 It would seem to me the Reg. could be thrown out by way
of law suit, if anyone was so inclined to do so.  I wonder if the ACLU
would find an interest in this.

Get a copy of that Statute to take with you if you go and ask 'em.

Sanity


     Chuck
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No, Chuck, please dont do that
    ... original Act of Congrass under Teddy Roosveldt, circa 1898, that ... rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: No, Chuck, please dont do that
    ... original Act of Congrass under Teddy Roosveldt, circa 1898, that ... rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp ... even if they intend to camp far apart from each ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: No, Chuck, please dont do that
    ... While such act lends a *color of ... rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp ... even if they intend to camp far apart from each ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: No, Chuck, please dont do that
    ... While such act lends a *color of ... rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp ... even if they intend to camp far apart from each ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: No, Chuck, please dont do that
    ... original Act of Congrass under Teddy Roosveldt, circa 1898, that ... rule will apply to a group of 75 or more people that request to camp ... even if they intend to camp far apart from each ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)