Hybrid Appraisals

[djd09]

obviously, you two never took high school civics class...cali has warped your minds

 

[djd09]

congress passed it duties to TAF....TAF passed it to the unethical stakeholders...and the unethical stakeholders passed it to ansi... you cant make this up

 

[glenn walker]

obviously, you two never took high school civics class...cali has warped your minds

Is USPAP Constitutional ?
Is requiring State License constitutional ?
Is TAF constitutional?

 

[George Hatch]

where do the user abusers get the authority to write laws...surely not the u.s. constitution

You based on your question on a factually incorrect premise.

Akin to "When did you get the right to beat your wife?" (Such a right does not exist)

Congress has the authority to agree with TAF or anyone and to legislate their agreement into law. So if you're asking about Civics 101 then that is the correct answer on a test and "users get authority to write laws" is a factually incorrect answer.

 

[glenn walker]

congress passed it duties to TAF....TAF passed it to the unethical stakeholders...and the unethical stakeholders passed it to ansi... you cant make this up

So it's constitutional and your still unhappy about it.

 

[djd09]

go ahead point to the section of the constitution that allows unelected stakeholders to write laws...i wont hold my breath

 

[Mejappz]

congress passed it duties to TAF....TAF passed it to the unethical stakeholders...and the unethical stakeholders passed it to ansi... you cant make this up

Honestly, there’s a real argument that what TAF is doing could be unconstitutional under Article I. And it’s not just TAF—this kind of thing is happening more and more, where private groups are basically acting like regulators, and the public is getting stuck with the consequences. That’s classic regulatory capture.


Article I says only Congress can make laws. Yes, Congress can delegate some of that power to federal agencies, but they’re supposed to give clear guidance—what the courts call an “intelligible principle” (from J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States). The problem is, TAF isn’t a government agency. It’s a private organization with no real public oversight, and yet it sets standards (like USPAP) that appraisers across the country are forced to follow.


That’s a huge deal. These aren’t just “suggestions”—they’re treated like law. And the people making these decisions? Not elected, not accountable, and in some cases, they may have conflicts of interest. So yeah, that could very well cross the constitutional line. This is exactly the kind of unchecked power the founders were trying to prevent.

 

[George Hatch]

Congress is comprised of the duly elected, and they have enacted their legislation. Similarly at the state legislatures. It would be up to the Judiciary to tell Congress and States that they had no such authority.

Even if the courts rule that way, what they're ruling on is the conduct of Congress. Not the conduct of TAF. If your worm farmer thinks otherwise then he needs to read a book.

 

[djd09]

based on their theory of law writing...congress could delegate their duties to Xi, putin, or hitler

 

[glenn walker]

Honestly, there’s a real argument that what TAF is doing could be unconstitutional under Article I. And it’s not just TAF—this kind of thing is happening more and more, where private groups are basically acting like regulators, and the public is getting stuck with the consequences. That’s classic regulatory capture.


Article I says only Congress can make laws. Yes, Congress can delegate some of that power to federal agencies, but they’re supposed to give clear guidance—what the courts call an “intelligible principle” (from J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States). The problem is, TAF isn’t a government agency. It’s a private organization with no real public oversight, and yet it sets standards (like USPAP) that appraisers across the country are forced to follow.


That’s a huge deal. These aren’t just “suggestions”—they’re treated like law. And the people making these decisions? Not elected, not accountable, and in some cases, they may have conflicts of interest. So yeah, that could very well cross the constitutional line. This is exactly the kind of unchecked power the founders were trying to prevent.

Me think's that outside a few areas nobody gives a **** about constitutional law.

That's why politician's throw their nightmare issues over to Federal Judges so they can bypass having to pass laws that hurt them politically.

So now you have a Nation run by Federal and State Bueracrats and Judges. Those all bypass Congress.