CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

No one is advocating a "centrally controlled economy".

Correct.

What is being advocated is pragmatism.

 

[dblack]

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

No one is advocating a "centrally controlled economy".

Correct.

What is being advocated is pragmatism.

But what many consider "pragmatic" is, in point of fact, more centralized control over the economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

 

[dblack]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."

Presupposes a "threat" that doesn't actually exist.

Examine any regulation and you will discover that it was promulgated because there was some harm that was happening to We the People and/or the natural resources of this nation.

For instance we have banking regulations because banks were "gambling" with the funds of depositors in the Wall Street Casino prior the 1929 crash. When those regulations were lifted during the Reagan administration on Savings & Loans we had the S&L collapse in 1989. Ditto for the removal of Glass-Steagal which resulted in the 2008 economic collapse.

We have EPA regulations because corporations polluted the air and water. We have OSHA regulations because corporations didn't provide safe working conditions for employees. We have Miranda regulations because cops were violating individuals Constitutional rights.

All of the above have to happen at the Federal level because they would be unenforceable at the state level. None of these regulations are a "threat" except as misperceived by those with a Libertarian agenda. So the entire concept of the "restoration of limited constitutional government" is just a smokescreen for a partisan attempt to tear down the current government to the point where it can be "drowned in a bathtub".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

More disinformation from HF!

Congress writes the law which delegates powers to the EPA (in this example) to regulate the quality of the air and water. In order for a regulation to be effective it requires a specific target, a control to measure that target and then a consequence for violating that target.

For instance the water in a river might have a target of N parts per million of a toxic chemical. Water samples taken downstream from an outlet that a corporation is using to that river would be taken at regular intervals. Those samples would be tested for those toxic chemicals. If found the results would be tabulated over a period of time and the agency would notify the corporation if those levels were exceeded. If after having received that notification the corporation doesn't remediate the outflow of toxic chemicals they will then be subject to the consequences of that violation.

What about that process does the OP have a problem with? Should corporations be allowed to pollute her drinking water at will? Should there be no consequences for destroying drinking water, ruining fisheries and tourism businesses downstream? Which is more "alarming"? Allowing unregulated corporations to strip mine and rape the natural resources of We the People or having regulations to ensure that the B&B and the Fish and Bait store downstream are not put out of business by corporations that put profits first and foremost with no concern for the consequences.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

More disinformation from HF!

Congress writes the law which delegates powers to the EPA (in this example) to regulate the quality of the air and water. In order for a regulation to be effective it requires a specific target, a control to measure that target and then a consequence for violating that target.

For instance the water in a river might have a target of N parts per million of a toxic chemical. Water samples taken downstream from an outlet that a corporation is using to that river would be taken at regular intervals. Those samples would be tested for those toxic chemicals. If found the results would be tabulated over a period of time and the agency would notify the corporation if those levels were exceeded. If after having received that notification the corporation doesn't remediate the outflow of toxic chemicals they will then be subject to the consequences of that violation.

What about that process does the OP have a problem with? Should corporations be allowed to pollute her drinking water at will? Should there be no consequences for destroying drinking water, ruining fisheries and tourism businesses downstream? Which is more "alarming"? Allowing unregulated corporations to strip mine and rape the natural resources of We the People or having regulations to ensure that the B&B and the Fish and Bait store downstream are not put out of business by corporations that put profits first and foremost with no concern for the consequences.

There is no disinformation in play here other than the incorrect or dishonest interpretation some wish to place on what others post.

This is a discussion topic please, and therefore it is intended to be discussed. Not accepted out of hand. Not agreed with if somebody doesn't. But something that provides a basis for a discussion.

In this case the problem is not with or what is or is not necessary regulation. Those who read what I write carefully will see that I made that explicitly clear.

The problem as expressed in the Heritage research piece and that is offered for discussion is whether Congress constitutionally HAS the power to delegate to the unelected the ability to impose what in effect are new laws on the people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

More disinformation from HF!

Congress writes the law which delegates powers to the EPA (in this example) to regulate the quality of the air and water. In order for a regulation to be effective it requires a specific target, a control to measure that target and then a consequence for violating that target.

For instance the water in a river might have a target of N parts per million of a toxic chemical. Water samples taken downstream from an outlet that a corporation is using to that river would be taken at regular intervals. Those samples would be tested for those toxic chemicals. If found the results would be tabulated over a period of time and the agency would notify the corporation if those levels were exceeded. If after having received that notification the corporation doesn't remediate the outflow of toxic chemicals they will then be subject to the consequences of that violation.

What about that process does the OP have a problem with? Should corporations be allowed to pollute her drinking water at will? Should there be no consequences for destroying drinking water, ruining fisheries and tourism businesses downstream? Which is more "alarming"? Allowing unregulated corporations to strip mine and rape the natural resources of We the People or having regulations to ensure that the B&B and the Fish and Bait store downstream are not put out of business by corporations that put profits first and foremost with no concern for the consequences.

There is no disinformation in play here other than the incorrect or dishonest interpretation some wish to place on what others post.

This is a discussion topic please, and therefore it is intended to be discussed. Not accepted out of hand. Not agreed with if somebody doesn't. But something that provides a basis for a discussion.

In this case the problem is not with or what is or is not necessary regulation. Those who read what I write carefully will see that I made that explicitly clear.

The problem as expressed in the Heritage research piece and that is offered for discussion is whether Congress constitutionally HAS the power to delegate to the unelected the ability to impose what in effect are new laws on the people.

It is disingenuous of the Heritage Foundation to imply that Congress DOESN'T have the power to do what the Constitution grants it to do. And the people who are doing their jobs are acting within the laws as enacted by Congress. If they weren't there would be a basis for lawsuits. Since what they are doing is NOT "new laws on the people" the HF is bamboozling people like you with utter nonsense that has no basis in reality.

Provide a list of these "new laws" and let's see if they can withstand scrutiny. I am willing to bet they can't which is why you won't.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that HF is pushing the Libertarian agenda of the Koch bros who are paying their salaries to spew this unAmerican disinformation and propaganda.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have a nice day DT. I hope somebody who really wants to discuss the concept instead of bash somebody or accuse somebody or play the broken ad hominem record routine will find the topic interesting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Have a nice day DT. I hope somebody who really wants to discuss the concept instead of bash somebody or accuse somebody or play the broken ad hominem record routine will find the topic interesting.

That you refuse to deal with reality and apply critical thinking to what you read is not my problem. You weren't able to refute anything I posted and neither were you able to substantiate anything that you quoted of HF's disinformation.

As far as I am concerned your blind partisan support for those who are intent upon destroying the government of the people and for the people is something that I will call out whenever and wherever I see it rear it's ugly head.

What has disappointed me is that you have indulged yourself in endless ad hominems of your own while denouncing them in the same post. That is just dishonest and I expected more from you in that respect. Your inability to see your own shortcomings is probably linked to your lack of critical thinking skills.

But whatever. You are free to believe in whatever you want and I will uphold that right of yours with my life. But it won't ever stop me from exposing your beliefs from being fallacious, unAmerican and harmful to We the People.

And no, you are not interested in actually "discussing the concept" at all. All you want is an echo chamber of dittoheads who will agree with everything you post no matter how wrongheaded, impractical and harmful it might be in reality. There are plenty of forums where you will find those people but here in USMB you are just going to have to deal with having your Libertarian illusions shattered on the rocks of harsh reality.

Have a nice day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's start with posts #1419 and #1420 boys. And pragmatism is what we're shooting for.

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

More disinformation from HF!

Congress writes the law which delegates powers to the EPA (in this example) to regulate the quality of the air and water. In order for a regulation to be effective it requires a specific target, a control to measure that target and then a consequence for violating that target.

For instance the water in a river might have a target of N parts per million of a toxic chemical. Water samples taken downstream from an outlet that a corporation is using to that river would be taken at regular intervals. Those samples would be tested for those toxic chemicals. If found the results would be tabulated over a period of time and the agency would notify the corporation if those levels were exceeded. If after having received that notification the corporation doesn't remediate the outflow of toxic chemicals they will then be subject to the consequences of that violation.

What about that process does the OP have a problem with? Should corporations be allowed to pollute her drinking water at will? Should there be no consequences for destroying drinking water, ruining fisheries and tourism businesses downstream? Which is more "alarming"? Allowing unregulated corporations to strip mine and rape the natural resources of We the People or having regulations to ensure that the B&B and the Fish and Bait store downstream are not put out of business by corporations that put profits first and foremost with no concern for the consequences.

There is no disinformation in play here other than the incorrect or dishonest interpretation some wish to place on what others post.

This is a discussion topic please, and therefore it is intended to be discussed. Not accepted out of hand. Not agreed with if somebody doesn't. But something that provides a basis for a discussion.

In this case the problem is not with or what is or is not necessary regulation. Those who read what I write carefully will see that I made that explicitly clear.

The problem as expressed in the Heritage research piece and that is offered for discussion is whether Congress constitutionally HAS the power to delegate to the unelected the ability to impose what in effect are new laws on the people.

It is disingenuous of the Heritage Foundation to imply that Congress DOESN'T have the power to do what the Constitution grants it to do. And the people who are doing their jobs are acting within the laws as enacted by Congress. If they weren't there would be a basis for lawsuits. Since what they are doing is NOT "new laws on the people" the HF is bamboozling people like you with utter nonsense that has no basis in reality.

Provide a list of these "new laws" and let's see if they can withstand scrutiny. I am willing to bet they can't which is why you won't.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that HF is pushing the Libertarian agenda of the Koch bros who are paying their salaries to spew this unAmerican disinformation and propaganda.

Correct.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), where Congress' implied powers are necessary for it to carry out its expressed powers, this fact is fundamental, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And this, of course, is where as always the debate must come to a halt.

The debate must come to a halt due to the consequence of libertarians and others on the reactionary right who refuse to accept the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, who refuse to accept settled, established Constitutional jurisprudence, and who adhere blindly to their errant, unsupported position that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' in all of its decisions, up to and including Marbury.

Most libertarians will continue to seek to propagate the canard that the Supreme Court 'usurped' its authority to engage in judicial review and interpret the meaning of the Constitution, willfully ignoring the fact that the Constitution indeed recognize the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts afforded the judiciary in Articles III and VI, where the doctrine of judicial review was established and in practice in Colonial America for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

If libertarians wish to engage in meaningful debate with regard to the proper role of government and the extent of its powers and authority, they must first be willing to accept these facts and address the issues within the context of the facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Regulation" is a horribly loaded, and overloaded, term. I'd suggest that we be more explicit when characterizing laws that might otherwise be referred to as "regulation".

For example, in my view one of the larger areas of dysfunction in what we often refer to as the "regulatory state", is the trend toward rulemaking that happens outside the traditional legislative process, usually by decree of appointed "czars" or committees. These rulemakers are generally disconnected from the voting public and far more responsive to lobbyists from the interest groups most impacted by the regulation.

That is the exact concept the Heritage paper was addressing. Congress comes up with a broad concept of something they think would be a good thing for the federal government to do; i.e. fund Head Start or authorize an EPA. But that's where our elected representatives participation in the process pretty well ends.

From then on, it is unelected bureaucrats who write rules and regulations that are treated as law of the land. And the problems that creates are shouted down by those who say that we MUST have federal regulations to protect our fisheries, to control what people are allowed to dump into the oceans and waterways, to expel into the air, to put into the foods that are sold in the grocery stores, etc.

And I agree. There is a role for the federal government in that capacity. But should Congress itself be involved and sign off on what that role is?

From the Heritage piece:

. . .How, exactly, does the administrative state do harm to our basic principles? There are four major constitutional problems.

• The administrative state combines the powers of government in the hands of the same officials in violation of the separation of powers principle.
• It is based on unconstitutional delegations of legislative power from Congress to bureaucrats and administrators.
• It violates the principle of republican government, which requires that power—especially legislative power—be derived from the consent of the governed, expressed directly or indirectly through elections.
• The administrative process it follows to adjudicate disputes is fundamentally opposed to the protections offered by the rule of law in the traditional judicial process.

All four of these constitutional issues are alarming, but when they are considered together, it becomes apparent that the administrative state is nothing short of a transformation of the American regime from a republic to a bureaucracy.​

More disinformation from HF!

Congress writes the law which delegates powers to the EPA (in this example) to regulate the quality of the air and water. In order for a regulation to be effective it requires a specific target, a control to measure that target and then a consequence for violating that target.

For instance the water in a river might have a target of N parts per million of a toxic chemical. Water samples taken downstream from an outlet that a corporation is using to that river would be taken at regular intervals. Those samples would be tested for those toxic chemicals. If found the results would be tabulated over a period of time and the agency would notify the corporation if those levels were exceeded. If after having received that notification the corporation doesn't remediate the outflow of toxic chemicals they will then be subject to the consequences of that violation.

What about that process does the OP have a problem with? Should corporations be allowed to pollute her drinking water at will? Should there be no consequences for destroying drinking water, ruining fisheries and tourism businesses downstream? Which is more "alarming"? Allowing unregulated corporations to strip mine and rape the natural resources of We the People or having regulations to ensure that the B&B and the Fish and Bait store downstream are not put out of business by corporations that put profits first and foremost with no concern for the consequences.

There is no disinformation in play here other than the incorrect or dishonest interpretation some wish to place on what others post.

This is a discussion topic please, and therefore it is intended to be discussed. Not accepted out of hand. Not agreed with if somebody doesn't. But something that provides a basis for a discussion.

In this case the problem is not with or what is or is not necessary regulation. Those who read what I write carefully will see that I made that explicitly clear.

The problem as expressed in the Heritage research piece and that is offered for discussion is whether Congress constitutionally HAS the power to delegate to the unelected the ability to impose what in effect are new laws on the people.

It is disingenuous of the Heritage Foundation to imply that Congress DOESN'T have the power to do what the Constitution grants it to do. And the people who are doing their jobs are acting within the laws as enacted by Congress. If they weren't there would be a basis for lawsuits. Since what they are doing is NOT "new laws on the people" the HF is bamboozling people like you with utter nonsense that has no basis in reality.

Provide a list of these "new laws" and let's see if they can withstand scrutiny. I am willing to bet they can't which is why you won't.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that HF is pushing the Libertarian agenda of the Koch bros who are paying their salaries to spew this unAmerican disinformation and propaganda.

Correct.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), where Congress' implied powers are necessary for it to carry out its expressed powers, this fact is fundamental, accepted, and beyond dispute.

And this, of course, is where as always the debate must come to a halt.

The debate must come to a halt due to the consequence of libertarians and others on the reactionary right who refuse to accept the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, who refuse to accept settled, established Constitutional jurisprudence, and who adhere blindly to their errant, unsupported position that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' in all of its decisions, up to and including Marbury.

Most libertarians will continue to seek to propagate the canard that the Supreme Court 'usurped' its authority to engage in judicial review and interpret the meaning of the Constitution, willfully ignoring the fact that the Constitution indeed recognize the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts afforded the judiciary in Articles III and VI, where the doctrine of judicial review was established and in practice in Colonial America for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

If libertarians wish to engage in meaningful debate with regard to the proper role of government and the extent of its powers and authority, they must first be willing to accept these facts and address the issues within the context of the facts.

However a constitutional convention with the goal of revising or correcting what needs to be correct in the Constitution or clarifying or strengthening certain concepts is not at all bound to any court ruling, not even SCOTUS. After all, SCOTUS is supposed to be bound by the Constitution as much as Congress or the Executive branch of government is bound. So any prior court rulings can be easily overturned by how a revised Constitution is written.

We are starting with a blank sheet of paper. We can be informed and guided by prior facts in evidence, and smart people do learn from history, but we are not bound to anything other than what we wish to do.

Do you believe your next door neighbor who has been elected by nobody, who has not even been vetted by anybody elected, should have the power to write laws that you must obey?

 

[dblack]

If libertarians wish to engage in meaningful debate with regard to the proper role of government and the extent of its powers and authority, they must first be willing to accept these facts and address the issues within the context of the facts.

No, it's not necessary to accept the status quo to engage in meaningful debate about the proper role of government. Fixating on legal precedent and current jurisprudence limits us to talking about the way things are, rather than how they ought to be. All you really do with that approach is avoid debating the proper role of government.

 

[candycorn]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

 

[Olde Europe]

However a constitutional convention with the goal of revising or correcting what needs to be correct in the Constitution or clarifying or strengthening certain concepts is not at all bound to any court ruling

So, you are posting ultra-right-wing, ultra-libertarian propaganda from HF, painting the big, bad bogeyman of the "regulatory state", hinting that Congress allegedly unconstitutionally delegates legislative, executive, and juridical functions to subordinate regulatory agencies and thus destroys the Republic (nothing less!), then a poster explains to you why that isn't the case, and your "rebuttal" is: "But we're starting from a blank slate!"

That's, quite plainly, nonsense, and on several levels, since Heritage was discussing the current situation, and since even a new Constitution would have to deal with questions as to how laws are going to be implemented. And it's going to be done more or less exactly how it is done. Whenever a legislature legislates that someone regulated under the law has to take "reasonable precautions to prevent x, y, or z from happening", regulatory agencies with the necessary expertise are going to go to work to figure out what exactly "reasonable precautions" would be, so as to clarify the law, and to ensure there's reasonable flexibility for the law to govern developing circumstances.

Of course, it is your prerogative to post that propaganda you are so fond of, but I find you ought to expect to be taken to task for it. For Heritage is, by know, known to be the propaganda arm of the business and Tea Party wings of the GOP. Just look at their propagandistic crocodile tears about the OSHA going to work whenever someone gets hurt or killed in their job, even if no formal complaint was being filed. Yeah, I guess that would be a big thorn in the side of the GOP's business wing, as well as in that of Heritage, which again shines more of a light - I am sorry to say - on your efforts to remove, at least in part, the regulatory agencies that are the Executive's arm implementing the laws Congress saw fit to make in order to protect citizens. Implied in that, of course, are sometimes limits imposed on corporations to pollute, to harm, to poison, or in other ways to put citizens at a disadvantage, which both you and Heritage find unbearable, following neatly from the overarching principle that only corporations are really people, as opposed to the have-not rabble that accidentally and recklessly was given the right to vote.

Again, that's your prerogative. Your whines about meeting fierce resistance to your aims are somewhat puzzling, though. You have shown yourself to be politically canny and well-informed, and should have expected nothing less.

 

[candycorn]

Have a nice day DT. I hope somebody who really wants to discuss the concept instead of bash somebody or accuse somebody or play the broken ad hominem record routine will find the topic interesting.

That you refuse to deal with reality and apply critical thinking to what you read is not my problem. You weren't able to refute anything I posted and neither were you able to substantiate anything that you quoted of HF's disinformation.

As far as I am concerned your blind partisan support for those who are intent upon destroying the government of the people and for the people is something that I will call out whenever and wherever I see it rear it's ugly head.

What has disappointed me is that you have indulged yourself in endless ad hominems of your own while denouncing them in the same post. That is just dishonest and I expected more from you in that respect. Your inability to see your own shortcomings is probably linked to your lack of critical thinking skills.

But whatever. You are free to believe in whatever you want and I will uphold that right of yours with my life. But it won't ever stop me from exposing your beliefs from being fallacious, unAmerican and harmful to We the People.

And no, you are not interested in actually "discussing the concept" at all. All you want is an echo chamber of dittoheads who will agree with everything you post no matter how wrongheaded, impractical and harmful it might be in reality. There are plenty of forums where you will find those people but here in USMB you are just going to have to deal with having your Libertarian illusions shattered on the rocks of harsh reality.

Have a nice day.

I've found that whenever someone quotes the "founders", the person doing the quoting is merely cherry-picking those founders that agreed with them or a compromise made by those founders that they can live with.

Going forward, if you are ever unsure if someone is truly a constitutional/historical/or scholar-otherwise on our republic, ask them the following simple question:

"What is in the Constitution or the amendments that you most disagree with?"

They will either not answer or they will say none of it and when they do, you know that you have them dead to rights. The very nature of compromise is that Party A gives up something and Party B gives up something. Within both parties, there are members of that group that would have given more and there are members that would have given less. So it would have been very uncommon to find someone from Colonial days (much less 230+/- years after the fact) that left the room totally satisfied at the outcome.

Anyway, I found it to be a very effective instrument.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

 

[dblack]

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

This is an excellent point, and it's really where the discussion needs to start. Until we have consensus on this question, the rest of it is just arm-wrestling.