The administrative state

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
53,468
52,155
3,605
For those who have not read Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny, this is for you.

"The Statist has constructed a Fourth Branch of government - and enormous administrative state - which exists to oversee and implement his policies. It is a massive yet amorphous bureaucracy that consists of a workforce of nearly 2 million civilian employees. It administers a budget of over $3 trillion a year. It churns out a mind-numbing number of rules that regulate energy, the environment, business, labor, employment, transportation, housing, agriculture, food, drugs, education, etc. Even the slightest human activity apparently requires its intervention: clothing labels on women's dress, cosmetics ingredients, and labeling. It even reaches into the bathroom, mandating shower head flow rates and allowable gallons per flush for toilets. It sets flammability standards for beds. There are nearly one thousand federal departments, agencies, and divisions that make laws and enforce them.

The official compilation of rules issued by the federal government, the federal Register, contained 74,937 pages of regulations in 2006. Tolstoy's War and Peace, only 1,400 pages in length, seems as light and airy as a romance novel by comparison. The rules in the Federal Register are written in a dense and confusing style, often confounding the lawyers, accountants, businessmen, and others required to digest them. The estimated cost of simply complying with these regulations was $1.14 trillion. The National Taxpayers Union estimated that in 2006, US businesses and individuals sent 6.65 billion hours struggling to comply with the complexities of the tax code, at a cost of $156.5 billion in lost productivity for businesses alone.

All branches of the federal government, elected and unelected, have consumed more and more of the governing authority of state and localities, leaving them less room to exercise their discretion. In doing so, the federal government is imposing its will directly on the communities and citizens in contravention of the Constitution. Consequently, there has been a fundamental breakdown of the federal system.

Having spent decades fighting and losing legal challenges to federal encroachment, states have for the most part accepted the role the Statist has assigned to them. Many governors have become politically expedient on the subject, arguing schizophrenically for federal intervention while defending state preeminence. Even worse, a type of crony federalism now exists whereby states lobby the federal government for advantage or relief. It works like this: States convince the federal government to fund projects within their own borders by taxing the citizens of other states. In the name of stimulating the economy, states, counties, cities, and towns have compiled long lists of pork projects they want paid for by the federal taxpayer. They are also asking the federal government to bail them out from their own deficits. For the Statist, the voluntary surrender of state and local authority to the federal government is to be encouraged. Moreover, states with more onerous regulatory standards often urge the federal government to impose those standards on other states to "level the playing field" Individuals, unions, and businesses also seek federal intervention to supplant state decisions that they do not like."
 
With the recent FCC ruling for the government to initiate power over the internet, this topic came to mind.

It was not long ago that Progressives fought to have those in the Senate elected directly by the people, however, today's Progressive has opted for a Fourth Branch of regulators who pass regulations and are not directly elected.

Is it then fair to say that Progressives have given up on democratic rule?
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.
 
:link:


9atlkm_zps822daaea.jpg
 
With the recent FCC ruling for the government to initiate power over the internet, this topic came to mind.

It was not long ago that Progressives fought to have those in the Senate elected directly by the people, however, today's Progressive has opted for a Fourth Branch of regulators who pass regulations and are not directly elected.

Is it then fair to say that Progressives have given up on democratic rule?

The method the Senate is elected has no bearing on the Senate's shift to being another representative body instead of the States' representative. The GOP of Texas and the TX state legislature would still have elected Coryn and Cruz and would have had no more control over the Senate's agenda as today.
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

Constitutional oversight?

What is the Constitutional process of passing laws again? Is it to pass it to committees where unelected bureaucrats discuss the matter and then give a thumbs up or down?

Both parties have destroyed the Constitutional process for law making. These are not regulations, they are laws pure and simple.
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

So let me get this straight.

Progressives took away the state right to appoint those in the Senate just so those in the Senate could appoint unelected bureaucrats to run the massive federal government for them?

Crazy stuff.
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

Constitutional oversight?

What is the Constitutional process of passing laws again? Is it to pass it to committees where unelected bureaucrats discuss the matter and then give a thumbs up or down?

Both parties have destroyed the Constitutional process for law making. These are not regulations, they are laws pure and simple.
That is because the old system was too slow...
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

Constitutional oversight?

What is the Constitutional process of passing laws again? Is it to pass it to committees where unelected bureaucrats discuss the matter and then give a thumbs up or down?

Both parties have destroyed the Constitutional process for law making. These are not regulations, they are laws pure and simple.
That is because the old system was too slow...

So we have a system whereby the US Congress only has a 10% approval rating and that is preferable?

Perhaps instead of shoving massive health care laws down our throats, immediately after Obama is making exemptions for his own law, they should take things a bit slower.
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

Constitutional oversight?

What is the Constitutional process of passing laws again? Is it to pass it to committees where unelected bureaucrats discuss the matter and then give a thumbs up or down?

Both parties have destroyed the Constitutional process for law making. These are not regulations, they are laws pure and simple.
That is because the old system was too slow...

So we have a system whereby the US Congress only has a 10% approval rating and that is preferable?

Perhaps instead of shoving massive health care laws down our throats, immediately after Obama is making exemptions for his own law, they should take things a bit slower.
The ACA is not an administrative law...It is a legislative one....
 
Congress has Constitutional oversight of all administrative agencies and the policy making of those agencies.

Congress' 435 members [Senate is fixed] are not representative of our nation's population and size of government as directed by the US Constitution.

Constitutional oversight?

What is the Constitutional process of passing laws again? Is it to pass it to committees where unelected bureaucrats discuss the matter and then give a thumbs up or down?

Both parties have destroyed the Constitutional process for law making. These are not regulations, they are laws pure and simple.
That is because the old system was too slow...

So we have a system whereby the US Congress only has a 10% approval rating and that is preferable?

Perhaps instead of shoving massive health care laws down our throats, immediately after Obama is making exemptions for his own law, they should take things a bit slower.
The ACA is not an administrative law...It is a legislative one....

True, but Obama made exemptions for his own law that he passed quickly through Congress.

Are you suggesting that the health care law should have gone through the regulatory process instead?

Is this an indication that democracy does not work?
 

Forum List

Back
Top