On May 24, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Hannon <othonna@gmail.com> wrote: > Except for one or two comments > from advocates against "invasives", the arguments were firmly against doing > away with the "innocent until proven guilty" system. > > It would be of interest to know by what rationale-- assuming public input > has any meaningful impact at all-- the USDA approved of the change to a > system of "guilty until proven innocent". > I agree. I generally am supportive of the U.S. method of having agencies assigned responsibilities over some aspect of our government, with Congress granting them the ability to set rules and regulations to carry out those responsibilities. But the one great weakness I see with this system—and it is the one major area where I dislike what agencies often do with the power they’re granted—is the ability to make rules willy-nilly, if they so choose, in whatever way the people in charge at the time feel like making them without having any accountability or answerability to the voters the way Congress does if they make rules the voters don’t like or want. It seems that not only does the majority not win, they’re often irrelevant. --Lee Poulsen Pasadena, California, USA - USDA Zone 10a Latitude 34°N, Altitude 1150 ft/350 m _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/