Left-Wing Journalist Bashes Obama's Rules as Being Illegal

[longknife]

TWO THOUSAND or more of them!

And here's the part that should anger every American:

There’s a problem, however: Technically speaking, these and about 1,800 other regulations shouldn’t be in effect, because they weren’t reported to Congress as required. Yet there is little that lawmakers or the courts can do about it.

These are rules that fine a farmer for having rainwater run off his land. Forbidding school bake sales. And on and on and on.

Isn't all that Hope and Change exactly what you all wanted?

Read @ Study: Hundreds of rules passed by Obama administration are technically illegal - The Washington Post

And

The Tyranny of the Federal Bureaucracy @ The Tyranny of the Federal Bureaucracy

 

[R.D.]

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison The Federalist, No. 47

 

[MaxGrit]

What Separation of Powers Means for Constitutional Government

Separation of powers was an idea accepted by all sides in the American founding, though its precise meaning remained unclear--at least until its famous exposition in the Federalist, the defense of the Constitution written by "Publius," the pen name of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The aim of such republicans as John Milton and Philip Hunton was to establish the rule of law by guaranteeing that those who made the law could not execute it and that those who executed it could not make it for the sake of their private advantage. In effect, of course, the doctrine was anti-monarchical, inasmuch as it reduced the King to the status of an "executive" (that is, someone who carries out the will of another).[1]

. . .

The administrative state was born to replace an outmoded constitution with a new one, organized around a powerful centralized government retaining, at most, only the independent judiciary as a holdover from a principled separation of powers. The new government would feature a closely integrated executive and legislative, dominated in partisan matters by a President who could influence Congress through his leadership of public opinion, and dominated on the administrative side by a Congress whose committees could control the executive agencies. On many levels, this is a description of American national government today. From the Framers' point of view, this picture represents a critical breakdown in the separation of powers. From the viewpoint of Woodrow Wilson and the advocates of the administrative state, it represents a stupendous breakthrough for enlightened political theory and practice.

The Constitution defended in the Federalist presumed that in order to be respectable, republican government had to be good government. It had, that is, to secure private rights and the public good, rather than simply obey the majority's will. Furthermore, it presumed that man, as a creature of passions as well as reason, would often act rashly and unjustly if he were not taught or habituated to respect the moral law superior to his own will, the law embodied in the Constitution.

But the Progressive architects of the new order assumed that history itself would guarantee the victory of reason in politics. Granted, this victory would not be direct but dialectical, employing men's passions as the vehicle by which reason would progress. Actually, however, the doctrine encouraged the belief that in political life there is no compelling need for self-restraint, for the moderation of political passions, for the accommodation of prejudices to reason. Practically speaking, no respect is owed to anything except the future--that became the new meaning of idealism, in whose name leaders and experts of all sorts were (in effect) to claim the right to rule ordinary citizens.

The success of the politics of progress was, on its own terms, the token of reason's ascendancy over passion. Man seemed, so to speak, to be reducing the distance between himself and God, as his reason worked itself out in the life of the administrative state. This is a strange, impious justification for bureaucratic rule, but perhaps, in the final analysis, it is the only compelling one.

 

[BlindBoo]

Michelle Obama isn?t banning bake sales, birthday cake - The Washington Post

 

[MaxGrit]

The Challenge of Limited Government - Mere Liberty

Corruption is a curious thing – it’s kind of like rain. A few drops are useful for a particular end. As it gets heavier you see more good things happening as a result, and you begin to appreciate the rain. But then it starts raining harder, and your inclination is to say, “I can take it.” The roof starts leaking, and water (like corruption) has this funny way of finding the weak spots and with enough in one concentrated area, the water breaks through a structure and destroys everything in it’s path. The damage that results is far weightier than if someone had been vigilant in fixing the broken system. This can take a long time, but corruption (like water) is patient and persistent. If someone comes along to patch the whole, water will either try to get through in the same place, or find it’s way to another weakness – which it eventually finds.

The challenge of limiting government is knowing when to call out your own. When was the last time you saw the Republican Party or the Democratic Party call their own members to the carpet for making poor choices or getting sucked into the corruption? It’s very easy for everyone – anyone – to get sucked in. Benjamin Franklin promised us a republican form of government but only if we could keep it through eternal vigilance. But that vigilance requires that we keep all elected officials in check – especially the ones we like. The temptation to consolidate power in the name of “government efficiency” will always be there, rare are those who resist that temptation.

 

[R.D.]

Michelle Obama isn?t banning bake sales, birthday cake - The Washington Post

Did you really think she could?


Put Down the Cupcake: New Ban Hits School Bake Sales

 

[shart_attack]

Michelle Obama isn?t banning bake sales, birthday cake - The Washington Post

Did you really think she could?



Put Down the Cupcake: New Ban Hits School Bake Sales

Doesn't matter what he thinks.

She probably thought she could.

 

[MaxGrit]

‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words
mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be
master—that's all.' 8

 

[thereisnospoon]

Michelle Obama isn?t banning bake sales, birthday cake - The Washington Post

No but somehow it mysteriously became a federal mandate. Now how the hell did that happen?

 

[Howey]

TWO THOUSAND or more of them!

And here's the part that should anger every American:

There’s a problem, however: Technically speaking, these and about 1,800 other regulations shouldn’t be in effect, because they weren’t reported to Congress as required. Yet there is little that lawmakers or the courts can do about it.

These are rules that fine a farmer for having rainwater run off his land. Forbidding school bake sales. And on and on and on.

Isn't all that Hope and Change exactly what you all wanted?

Read @ Study: Hundreds of rules passed by Obama administration are technically illegal - The Washington Post

And

The Tyranny of the Federal Bureaucracy @ The Tyranny of the Federal Bureaucracy

Curtis Copeland is a left wing journalist?