That's not what the constitution says. There are no exceptions cited. The executive branch has no constitutional authority to decide what we can and can't do (a rule), only Congress can do that. SEC and EPA are the executive branch. The rules we live by should be voted on by our elected representatives, not decreed by an executive agency. As I said, if we need to consult experts to draft rules, so be it. But they must be voted on in a democracy. That's not the way it works. The executive has no authority to issue decrees, regardless of whether congress could reject them later on. Executing the law: EPA inspects fuel for compliance with composition standards Congress voted on. Making the law: EPA issues regulation for new fuel composition standards that no one voted on Executing the law: HHS makes sure all health plans contain contraception coverage as voted on by Congress Making the law: HHS declares all health plans will cover contraception, no one voted on
That's your opinion, but not what the Constitution says. It says only Congress can legislate. The SEC and EPA are not writing legislation, so they are not in violation of that.
Sigh...those are blatant falsehoods. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, but somewhere along the line, the Constitution stipulates who has the power to interpret the Constitution. thank heavens it isn't you. Anyways, why should all these rules and regulations be voted on in Congress? Other than some vague "I think they should!" reasoning? The SEC is bound by legistation, law and oversight. Congress can overrule their desicions by passing new laws. As it is, your intent to have Congress to vote on, for example, how every derivative must be included in new regulated clearing houses seems to be unworkable, and plainly useless, as the main legistation stipulating derivatives should be included in new regulated clearning houses has already passed Congress. Oh, you say we should consult experts for this? Should we pay,say,McKinsey to baby-step with representatives all the way from A to B, so they can vote on all the minutae of the law they already passed, and constitutionally were able to delegate onto more responsible agents?
Where in the constitution is the executive branch given the power to issue/impose regulations? No regulation without representation. If you want to set up regulatory agencies that rule over us without accountability to the voters, amend the constitution to make it happen. But as currently written, "All Legislative Powers" reside with Congress (you keep telling me what it says is not actually what it says, but it's hard to cede my critical thinking skills over to the SCOTUS, infallible and all knowing though they may be). I agree though, it's a pain trying to control people's behavior when everything has to be voted on. Democracy is so messy, such an impediment to getting stuff done.
We don't have to amend the constitution to do this, because only a tiny minority of crackpots like yourself have adopted this view after magically stumbling upon the genius of Ron Paul's website. A vocal minority, true, yet largely irrelevant in the grand scheme. Educated folks who are responsible for actually determining this have decided otherwise over the course of hundreds of years. Ergo, your case is dismissed.
Your self-proclaimed critical reasoning skills are based on your premise of sticking to one dogged principle and not addressing any points beyond it. This is perhaps why you should defer to the Supreme Court or relevant authorities to do your thinking for you, because you clearly cannot formulate any thought on the topic other than "we should do this because---principle X of voters should decide ALL THE THINGS"---literally that is everything all of your arguments boil down to, and is already knocked down a peg by the whole concept of representative democracy. Anyways, Mr. Constitution, unfortunately in your reading of the Constitution you seem to have missed this--- Which means your particular interpretations of the Constitution mean nothing, by the same document you cite, your self-proclaimed critical reasoning skills aside. You can amend that part of the Constitution if you wish it to be the contrary, otherwise defer to the Supreme Court---who have the power of law, and probably better critical reasoning skills if I might add so myself. I challenge you to defend your position without resorting to platitudes that add zero substantive values. Things like "no regulation without representation", "I think", "We should", "freedom or death" etc. You have cited about zero logical reasons, and for all your lamentation about appeal to authority, you should use it more often. You are clearly not an authority on the topic, and you should be more humble, and recognize that.
Jeff Sessions from Alabama puts Commodore's mental eruptions into action, threatening a filibuster of the Sportsmen's Act (a bunch of hunting law changes with bipartisan support): Seriously DUCK STAMPS everybody. This is like the Stamp Act.
I don't even understand why you're arguing, Commodore. If you want to argue enumerated vs unenumerated rights, and take the most extreme view that enumerated rights are the only ones that count---say goodbye to a general right to privacy unless you're being searched or seized, or soldiers are about to quartered in your house. But even then, the Constitution enumerates Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Which means businesses will be regulated anyways, you just want to make it unworkable and make Congress vote on the rules it has oversight over, and which it lays out the framework for in legislation because--- "the people should decide ALL THE THINGS, or at least their duly elected representatives, which already decide all the things, should really vote on all the things. like literally every detail. like what date it is, and what date it will be tomorrow."
Congress gave it the right... through its legislative powers that is the Constitutional right of Congress. And for the Nth time, rules are not legislation. The SEC can't legislate. What part of that don't you understand? Besides which, the Constitution gives SCOTUS the right to interpret it. Why do you not believe in that part of the Constitution?
In a democracy, the rules we live by should be voted on, not decreed. I agree, when the government tries to manage every detail of our lives, it becomes unmanageable to vote on everything. The individual should decide most things for themselves. But those things decided by the people should be voted on. That's the problem, they set the rules we must live by without any vote from our representatives. I don't question their authority to interpret, only their reasoning. "Because they said so" is not a valid argument. Plessy and Dred Scott were bad reasoning. Check the thread history, I didn't start this line of discussion.
You appear to believe then that we live in a direct democracy rather than a representative one. We don't.
But SEC Commissioners do. You don't...and thank god, because you don't have the necessary expertise to make an informed judgment, nor do most people.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy - or a Representative Democracy, if you prefer. Either way, we pick representatives and give them the authority to write laws. Congress similarly picks representatives (executive agencies) and gives them the authority to make rules. Again, there is nothing Unconstitutional about this process.
As evidenced by the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled definitively on the subject. Give it up Commodore, you are just showing us that you believe the DERP.
What does the SEC and EPA have to do with the Tax plan. Maybe this is the whole Republican mantra. The economy sucks, the republicans will retort "Obama is going to take your guns."
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand how legislation is written. It is written into legislation that the relevant executive agency will create regulations to attain the desired outcome of that legislation. He's confused because he doesn't understand how the process actually works. Congress gives the authority to make regulations in the legislation so the whole controversy is just silly.
