Posted on 06/19/2022 11:45:35 AM PDT by DFG
The federal government could take action against U.S. airlines on behalf of customers, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Saturday.
Many Americans have endured delays, cancelations, and other travel complications during the coronavirus pandemic, and in recent months, after many pandemic-related travel restrictions were lifted.
Following Buttigieg’s own flight being canceled, forcing him to drive from Washington to New York, he said his department has authority to enforce action against airlines that do not sufficiently maintain consumer-protection standards, potentially requiring them to hire more staff.
"That is happening to a lot of people, and that is exactly why we are paying close attention here to what can be done and how to make sure that the airlines are delivering," Buttigieg said during an interview with The Associated Press Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Democrats always treat our businesses as enemies. They have NO understanding of how businesses work. They are arrogant and ignorant.
“Maybe he can hire some of the teachers who are quitting. There’s more security at airports, and that should make them feel better. And masks. Teachers to Pilots”
Or they could hire illegal aliens.
How about having the Air Force fill in. Just like cargo flights from Europe with baby formula.
“Or am I thinking of the wrong guy?”
Pretty sure that’s him.
The feds have no such power... period.
Buttplug... Worthless POS.
The Biden plan. FORCE companies to do everything. Not enough tampons. FORCE tampon makers to make more. Not enough pilots. FORCE airlines to hire more pilots. High gas. FORCE companies to make gas. It’s almost as if the democrats regret losing their slaves.
Buttguy is totally representative of the incompetent, lying, corrupt, perverted, moronic, communists, freakish members of the Biden Administration.
South Bend has an airport. Notre Dame and all that.
What a moron.
I can ride a horse-—but I cannot fly a plane-—can BUTT BOY change that?
OH, BTW—I am also 82.
The Brandon administration has absolutely no idea what they are doing.
The other explanation is malice against the American people.
5.56mm
KEEP PUSHING, PETE-——
Texas can secede at any time & I predict that at least 24 other states would join Texas.
If you have not seen the following material about the Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) concerning 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty, you might find it interesting.
To begin with, in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's emphasis of the reasonably clear meaning of 10A in United States v. Butler opinion, using inappropriate (imo) terms like "concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring justices got finished with it in Wickard.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
In other words, FDR's activist justices scandalously (imo) treated 10A like an old wives' tale, effectively politically "repealing" it imo.
Regarding Wickard, not only did FDR's renegade justices ignore case precedent about Congress's limited Commerce Clause powers, consider Justice Joseph Story's paragraph about that clause. Story's clarification not only volunteers examples of powers that the clause does not give to Congress, but also warns of the consequences of Congress overstepping the limited commerce powers it has.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
Also, based on the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), I would have argued that things like Congress being able to regulate the value of money for example for supporting commerce, likewise for defining weights and measures used in commerce, are reasonably implied by the Commerce Clause.
But then why did the delegates to the Constitutional Convention give those powers to Congress in a separate clause if they are reasonably "necessary and proper" for Congress to do its duty to regulate interstate commerce?
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
These observations bring us to Thomas Jefferson's good advice for interpreting the relatively few powers that the states have expressly constitutionally given to the feds.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Insights welcome.
The bottom line is that Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters need to primary RINOs and elect as many new Trump-endorsed federal and state elected leaders as they can in 2022 midterm elections.
Pilots wanted. Good wages, no experience necessary as long as you have been jabbd
The airlines should call Black Lives Matter and hire some of their rocket scientists to pilot the aircraft.
ROFL
But being LUGBUTQIX+ is qualifications enough.
Dude, that’s a 220 mile drive. That’s a Sunday afternoon pleasure drive. Or it was before you guys made gas prices skyrocket.
Deutschland, Deutschland uber Ales and the Horst Wessels Lied started pouring from my computer when I opened this posting. What could be causing that?
This guy is a moron of the highest order. One does not just “order up” flight crews from Amazon, but I suspect they know that. They’re just buffing buttwipe’s bono fides for his 2024 as the addled usurpers replacement. Make him seem like a tough guy. If these morons didn’t impose the “vaccine” mandate maybe we wouldn’t have a crew shortage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.