Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
whitnebrat wrote:
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementa... (
show quote)
You have been reading too many ELWNJ sites.
My first reaction to this is actual left eing propaganda, but this is all possible
The court is that right wing
Liberty Tree wrote:
You have been reading too many ELWNJ sites.
So you weren’t able to come up with any facts to refute what Whitnebrat stated, so you decided to just call him names.
whitnebrat wrote:
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementa... (
show quote)
Decisions that could adversely affect us are possible with either left or right wing leaning courts. Thats the way it works. Each side tends to see the worst in the other
Our rights and freedoms are being squeezed from both sides and have been for some time. We have become numbed to whats going on
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
whitnebrat wrote:
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementa... (
show quote)
So many constitutionally wrong liberal statements in that opinion to address in a short answer. So I'll simple state that "promote" does not mean "provide" and "regulate commerce between the states" was not meant to mean the regulation everything from toilets to education. Democrats had control of the federal government 80% of the time in the 20th century and that is what brought us to this overreaching federal administrative government that is no longer answerable to the people.
whitnebrat wrote:
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementa... (
show quote)
Nothing in the constitution allows for the whole of congress to delegate its legislative or regulatory authority to any of the various unelected ABC departments. We the People keep hearing that the Senate and the House are the great deliberative bodies of our national government, therefore make it so that these great bodies of government are forced to do their due diligence and that all regulations and rules made up by these unelected bureaucrats are put to a v**e by the elected house and senate. You claim that they don't have the time. Well they sure have the time for months off for vacation and campaigning, maybe they should take a vacation like the rest of working people do.
The ninth and tenth amendments were put in the bill of rights to prevent the federal government from becoming a tyrannical and controlling government, which it has become.
The patriot act is unconstitutional in that it gives government the power to bypass Habeas Corpus and hold anyone in detention and denied a speedy trial and to face their accusers. 1*6 comes to mind.
You worry about States taking back control of theirs or the rights of the people, I say Great. Let the various states take control and provide 50 laboratories to experiment what works and what doesn't. People have the right to v**e with their feet and looking at California and NY they are doing it and it is not only the people it is also corporations.
hbmac10 wrote:
Nothing in the constitution allows for the whole of congress to delegate its legislative or regulatory authority to any of the various unelected ABC departments. We the People keep hearing that the Senate and the House are the great deliberative bodies of our national government, therefore make it so that these great bodies of government are forced to do their due diligence and that all regulations and rules made up by these unelected bureaucrats are put to a v**e by the elected house and senate. You claim that they don't have the time. Well they sure have the time for months off for vacation and campaigning, maybe they should take a vacation like the rest of working people do.
Nothing in the constitution allows for the whole o... (
show quote)
So you would have the Congress have to pass the final versions of every regulation? This is a workload that would be impossible, and thus your wish would be granted to eliminate most of the regulatory structure of the federal government. It would then be a nightmare for any multi-state corporation to navigate fifty different regulatory regimes, if there was any regulation of their industry at all.
What would happen, for instance, about the safety of interstate trucks, airlines, or railroads? How about banking where there were fifty different state requirements? Or stock exchanges? The list goes on ...
Quote:
The ninth and tenth amendments were put in the bill of rights to prevent the federal government from becoming a tyrannical and controlling government, which it has become.
The patriot act is unconstitutional in that it gives government the power to bypass Habeas Corpus and hold anyone in detention and denied a speedy trial and to face their accusers. 1*6 comes to mind.
So you would not prosecute the 1*6 r****rs for the incursion into the capitol? That seems like a pretty violent act to me, considering the loss of life, the injuring of over a hundred police officers, and the damage to the building itself. To not prosecute them would give a blank check for others to do even more damage. C'mon ... if you consider these r****rs to be "tourists" on a sightseeing visit to the capitol, we really do disagree.
Quote:
You worry about States taking back control of theirs or the rights of the people, I say Great. Let the various states take control and provide 50 laboratories to experiment what works and what doesn't. People have the right to v**e with their feet and looking at California and NY they are doing it and it is not only the people it is also corporations.
It is a well known fact that state legislatures are far easier to manipulate by lobbyists, and most regulatory structures would never be re-implemented at that level. Imagine West Virginia or Kentucky regulating coal ash, or putting together a viable mine safety program, let alone enforcing it. Imagine Texas trying to regulate the petroleum industry's emissions from their refineries. As noted earlier, how would you prevent usury from the banking system if there were fifty different schemes that a multi-state bank had to deal with, and the lax enforcement (if any at all) at some state levels?
It would be a national joke of workplace safety if OSHA didn't exist. Hazardous industries would eliminate safety requirements and on-the-job deaths and injuries would skyrocket. How about the pollution of water supplies for major cities where there is an interstate watershed?
On the social program side, if you were to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, you'd lose at least half of your senior population over 65 to suicide, homelessness, or malnutrition. The private charities and churches can't pick up that load in any way ... they're struggling as it is to do what they do now.
And the implementation of 'moral legislation' would violate the rights of citizens in who they could marry or how they could control the operation of their own bodies. Even you would have to admit that prohibiting such things as "same-sex marriage" are religious mandates, not a universal ones such as murder or theft.
Yes, the Constitution doesn't cover all these things and more, but the founders could have not envisioned the modern culture that requires a national approach to many of these problems. You would love to eliminate the "administrative state", but you would h**e the chaos and anarchy that would follow that (in many cases) you aren't even aware of because of the elimination of lots of federal agencies and programs. Just one ... the USDA food inspection program. Imagine the ravage of ecoli if the food you buy at the supermarket wasn't inspected? I think that it wouldn't be long before you were clamoring for a return to that administrative state for self-preservation, safety and comfort.
Good talking points if you want to talk about maximum individual freedom (also called anarchy), but some of those freedoms have to be given up if you are to have a viable society that isn't a dictatorship or a monarchy.
whitnebrat wrote:
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of an OSHA rule regarding v******tion/testing requirements for businesses employing over 100 personnel. The reasoning behind this decision is a theory of administrative law called "the non-delegation doctrine" . What this theory holds is that Congress cannot delegate its authority make laws and regulations to agencies without Congressional legislation.
This is what the "destruction of the administrative state" that Steve Bannon has been pushing is all about. And the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is going to do it, unless checked.
Possible aims of this Supreme Court could be:
Denying new entrants into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
Halting the operation of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other financial regulators.
Stopping the safety operations of the FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration, the National T***sportation Safety Board, and other organizations regarding the safety of citizens.
Allowing discrimination against minorities almost every venue.
This is but a minor se******n of agencies, boards and even p**********l cabinet level departments that could be affected by this implementation of the "non-delegation doctrine." Since Congress didn't provide detailed requirements for the creation and operation of these agencies and bureaus (so the theory goes), the agencies can't technically make regulations to alleviate the problems that they were created to solve.
Yes, this is probably a worst-case scenario, and I'm hollering with my hair on fire, but it is possible.
Congress has neither the time nor will to deal with the intimate details of how each agency formulates and implements it rules and regulations.
The implementation of this doctrine would throw all this regulatory necessity onto the states, who are woefully ill-equipped to handle this massive undertaking. You would have a hodge-podge of inadequate regulations that varied from state to state, if indeed the states even tried to regulate some of these functions at all. Businesses would have a field day in either thwarting regulation at the state level or preventing its generation in the first place.
Most of these agencies were originally created to prevent damage (either real or financial) to the citizens of the United States. In most cases, the states had either minimal or no regulations or the existing ones only covered their state.
The Preamble to the Constitution has the following clause:
"… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...".
If trying to prevent the spread of a p******c isn't 'promoting the general welfare', then I don't know what validity that the clause in the Preamble has. If trying to make air travel, cars and trucks, and railroads safer for the traveling public is wrong, I don't know how we can/could travel safely. If regulating the stock market to prevent investors from getting fleeced and bankrupted is something to be avoided, then we're heading into trouble.
A related trend on the Supreme Court is condoning the imposition of moral legislation on the citizenry or rolling back such protections as a******n rights, same-sex marriage, so-called Death with Dignity acts, and others which are repugnant to some moral/religious precepts. Not all of the population agrees with these concepts on a national or even on a state level, and the First Amendment only guarantees "freedom of religion" … unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee "freedom from religion." It doesn't grant the imposition of religious concepts on the general population nor does it prevent it.
The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may apply, however, in that by passing legislation of a moral sense violates the freedom to believe in what you wish to believe, and your right to practice your own moral values (within reason.) Of course, murder, rape, theft, and a few other offenses against society are generally accepted and enshrined in almost every belief system, but various other moral offenses do not fall into this primary category.
The furor over so-called "states rights" that has been periodically erupting since the founding of the nation is a false f**g, even though it is referred to into the Constitution. It is well known that throwing these programs and regulatory structures to the states will ensure their demise.
The federal government is top dog, due to the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supercede state law … period.
One other interesting sidelight is that part of the definition of "constitution" at the generation of the Constitution is that it wasn't ratified or generated by the states ... it was done by the "people of the United States". The opening of the Constitution itself states "We the people, in order … do ordain and establish this Constitution". Not the states, and not the people of the individual states … the entire population of the United States. It's a compact with the people of the United States, not by the individual states as entities. When it was established, the people were the ones deciding that the states were not actual parties to the Constitution, but were somewhat sidelined in the process.
In this light, reversing the "social welfare" programs that have existed since the Roosevelt administration, and others enacted since, violates the Preamble's statement of "to promote the general welfare", since the Constitution is a compact between the federal government and the entire population of the United States.
The conservative bent of the current Supreme Court is worrisome for the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a national scale. If these rights and programs are scaled back to state control, I fear for the liberties we currently enjoy being trampled on and disregarded in many jurisdictions.
Recently, the Supreme Court blocked the implementa... (
show quote)
When I read such rants I’m sure glad we have the Supreme Court of the United States, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and most of all the constitution of the United States amen and thank you Lord~~
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
