The same party of idiots that thinks the best way to solve the purported crisis of a revenue shortfall is to enact policies that intentionally decrease revenue. They should not be trusted, and should be ridiculed and ignored when discussing such matters. (...tabling the fact that a balanced budget amendment is a horribly stupid and destructive idea...)
There's a huge difference between a law as written in the USC, and a rule as written in the CFR. Rules are not laws. Rules are enacted by the executive branch to implement and enforce laws passed by legislative branch. Rules cannot negate laws, but are free to interpret (and unfortunately frequently bend) the laws passed by Congress. For example: Law states A cannot be B Rules cannot be made to allow A to be B However, a rule can allow certain things to be reasonably interpreted as either A or C. Since there is no law prohibiting C to be B, then something like A, but can be reasonably interpreted as C, can therefore be B. You can cry foul (and to a certain extent I'd agree), but there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If Congress does not like certain rules/regulations set forth by various agencies, it has the power to pass a new law to explicitly revoke rules that they feel are contrary to the spirit of the original law passed.
Oh sweet, Commodore Lawyer, Esq. is here to embarrass himself with an oven-roasted chicken breast -fisted argument about Schechter v. U.S. Poultry and delegation. There are not enough lolruses basking in the frigid waters off the ROFL straits to watch this kind of trainwreck in action. Continue bro-sky.
Right, it says Congress is enumerated to regulate interstate commerce, not the EPA or SEC (the executive branch). That's the problem. Rules tell us what we can and can't to, but no one voted on them. That's tyranny. I challenge you to differentiate between an edict or decree from a king/dictator, and a regulation. Both are rules imposed on us without any democratic process. The only difference is Congress willingly ceded the executive this authority, like the Roman Senate empowering Caesar. I implore the mods to start deleting/banning these sorts of "you're so dumb neener neener" posts. They are neither debate nor discussion.
So says the guy who made his BBS career on starting a thread by posting a single (oversized) video/article harvested off the latest right wing echo chamber content farm, offering zero commentary, and then abandoning ship. If you want to have a debate or discussion with yours truly, the following balls remain in your court: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7316851&postcount=23 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7305897&postcount=40 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7261972&postcount=51 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6131344&postcount=286 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6123125&postcount=52 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5913840&postcount=51 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5896795&postcount=19 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5877003&postcount=84 I look forward to your responses.
So should we pay Congressmen $5 million extra to go and enforce their broad swaths of law, or should we let them delegate the specific regulation-making tied strictly to Congressional laws passed to define broad intent of legistation? Oh and also, most regulations and rules are ultimately accountable to Congress anyways, in case one of those short-termed vote-mongers with limited knowledge of science or financial markets decides to venture in there regardless. For someone who always goes about and laments about how government is unworkable, you sure have made an ideal concept of government in your head that is unworkable. Let it be clear that your ideological "constitution" bones is a smelly fish anyways, business will be regulated for the costs they impose on financial markets or the environment. You're just quibbling about how, and verging towards impratical mayhem based on limited knowledge of the actual process (which reminds me, again, of most liberitarian critiques of well, anything---floating exchange rates, the Fed etc.). The Constitution specifically enumerates that Congress should regulate interstate trade and commerce. It must be a curious position you find yourself in defending the same amount of government, because well, the Constitution. (and yes, all governmental powers have been established within the Constitution, lest those pending challenges by the Supreme Court or other federal circuit courts. That's kinda how law becomes law.)
Schechter v. U.S. Poultry ^I did find the argument akin to this one, nevermind the fact that it was partially overruled later by more expanded readings of the Commerce Clause. I also think it would be laughable to compare Schechter to say JP Morgan and Chase. Also, for heaven's sake, just to end this--- Constitution'd
Did you even read the rest of my post or did you just hop onto your high horse and start screaming "tyranny." You're free to believe that rules/regulations are "tyranny," but unfortunately it's tyranny built into the Constitution. Since you're such a constitutional advocate, you ought to know that Article II states that the Executive Branch "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." How exactly does the Executive Branch do that without laying out rules, regulations, and procedures to ensure enforcement is consistent? I suppose we should just hand law enforcement officers a copy of the United States Code and just tell them, "Here's the law. Interpret it they way you think it should be, and enforce it the way you see fit." Like I said before, rules cannot negate laws. They also can't be used to declare an action unlawful when there is no law against such an action. However, this constitutionally delegated power allows for a significant amount of leeway in how the Executive Branch chooses to enforce the law. If that's your problem, then maybe you ought to start a movement to amend the Constitution.
I don't agree with this interpretation. Article I couldn't be more clear: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." (i.e. not executive agencies) Don't you love how "All Powers" really implies not all powers? But hey, I don't have a law degree, so I'm not sophisticated enough to discern what "All legislative Powers" means. When the EPA proclaims what mileage cars shall have, that's a rule we must all live by that no one voted on. When Kathleen Sebelius proclaims what shall be covered by all insurance plans, that's a rule we must all live by that no one voted on. It's so disheartening that this doesn't bother people, being ruled by dictat from ministries and ministers. Also notice the fervent attempt to shut this discussion down through ridicule and appeals to authority.
As opposed to your tactic of unfounded, unsupported assertion presented with no evidence other than "i think". How are we supposed to debate with this? Other than laughing at it?
Enforcing rules vs. making rules, a clear distinction. It may be necessary to set up a federal agency to enforce the rules, but they don't get to decide what those rules are. That's what our elected representatives are for. At the very least, such agencies should be limited to drawing up rules that are nonbinding until/unless approved by Congress. Don't agree with this. A regulation by definition restricts (regulates) human activity (makes it illegal). That should only be done through the democratic process.
...as noted. This stems from--- Oh, you disagree with the interpretation? Well, excuse us for appealing to the authority that is responsible for the interpretation of the Constitution as set out in the Constitution to "squelch" debate with someone who wants to drape himself in "Constitution government!". Anyways, now you're ranting about representative government or just ranting about nothing, because the laws set in Obamacare were voted in by Congress, in case you hadn't noticed.
I think what you're getting at Commodore, is that you want government by Commodore, with an interpretation of the Constitution by Commodore. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately if viewed from others), this will never be the case because well, for example--- ---the EPA is already mostly bound by Congress in this way, as I have already posted about. Please do understand the process behind proper and constitutional governance before launching into vague "principled" stances based on opinion and heresay and what YOU think the Constitution should be (and not say, nine Supreme Court justices trained in the matter and delegated the responsibility of doing so).
LMFAO - yes, that's a popular tactic in courts - "look your honor, the defense has cited Miranda v. Arizona regarding their rights, surely this NAKED appeal to the constitutional interpretation authority of the highest court in the land can't be considered valid when determining rights under the Constitution!"
It's true authority figures/experts can be a good source for sound arguments. But you're claiming their argument is sound by virtue of their authority, rather than on the merits of the arguments themselves. No, the authority for HHS to make rules was voted in by congress. The rules themselves congress punted to the executive branch (lots of "HHS Secretary shall determine XXXXX" passages in Obamacare). I'm arguing the constitution does not give congress the authority to do this, since "All Legislative Powers shall be vested in Congress".
We might have to abandon the nice fantasy of supply side economics, a balanced budget and free five star lunches and third vacation homes in Aspen for the wealthy so dear to them-- and also pitifully so dear to small guy Fox viewers and libertarians?
All legislative power is vested in Congress except the power to legislatively delegate duties. You can wish for anything you want except more wishes.
Rules are not legislation. What is the problem/inconsistency here? The SEC or EPA can't write legislation, so the Constitution hasn't been violated.
you haven't responded at all to how your principles would make government unworkable. there's been like 3 or 4 users who have pointed out the fact that legistators elected to Congress are not the best suited towards pointing out the specific nuts-and-bolts of say, the counterparty and systematic risk entailed in hidden off-balence sheet items. Not only that, you've put yourself into a corner where no one knows why exactly you're arguing at all, seeing as how the merits of your arguments (however few they may be) are already addressed by the fact that Congress DOES have sweeping oversight of quite a few rules and regulations, and can simply propose new laws if there were a need to override a whole bunch of rules and regulations anyways. Given that you will not stand for the merits of your arguments yourself, I do not know why you would expect this debate to continue towards that direction. Your arguments have been vague, ideologically driven, and based on nothing more than "well, I think we should---because the Constitution, wait the people, wait no, Commodore thinks we should". They are unworkable in practice, and based on a theory that seems to ignore how representative government in America works. In short, constitution'd.
Again, you're conflating the terms law and rule. Regulatory agencies enforce the law. The make the rules to do so. Rules cannot negate law, nor can they enforce a nonexistent law. You have this notion that regulatory agencies just make arbitrary rules to restrict you from taking any action they want to prevent. However, they can't make such a rule unless it can be reasonably interpreted as a way to enforce some pre-existing law. If not, you have legal recourse to fight it and a federal court can strike the rule down. Congress also has the power to pass a law to revoke any rule set forth by the Executive Branch should it decide to do so. Really, what you're saying is that you don't think the Executive Branch should not be allowed to "faithfully execute the law" unless the Legislature approves of their plan for "faithful execution." Well, that's not in the Constitution, so stop acting as if it is. If you believe it should be, write to your representative and tell him/her to start the amendment process.
