Executive Order Creates Political Officers for all US Regulatory Agencies

[Kuciwalker]

By the way, I suspect it would be fairly useless against an F-16. Or a UAV.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

They've got a new IED that the military is called an EFP, IIRC, Effective Formed Projective. Basically it's a shaped IED with a metal cap. The explosion liquefies the metal, which can penetrate up to four inches of armor 300 years away.

time bombs

[chequita guevara]

[Berzerker]

We could never defeat our own government with guns.

I suggest you consider what 50 million gun owners can do to a few hundred politicians even if a sizeable chunk of the military decided to try and defend them, much less try to exert control over us...

Do you think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to make those?

The 2nd Amendment does not give rights, it recognises the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms - a reference to guns, not nukes, or IEDs, or tanks. On the other hand, Congress has the power to regulate the militias as to training and weaponry etc, but I dont think that translates into a power to decide what people can own privately. That would be a state matter... Remember, the Framers relied on privateers during the war and they even wrote a power to hire and reward privateers into the Constitution - some people actually had warships back then

They can hire people to advise on technical matters, that would be a law necessary and proper to exercising their constitutional powers. They cannot hire people to write laws for them...

To clarify, the problem is that when Congress tells bureaucrats to fill in the details, Congress doesn't actually vote on the details. That means people not empowered to write laws are actually writing laws...and those laws aren't even voted on by Congress, or signed into law by the Prez. Its an end run around the constitutional process of law making...

[Kuciwalker]

To clarify, the problem is that when Congress tells bureaucrats to fill in the details, Congress doesn't actually vote on the details.

Should Congress approve every hiring, every funding decision in every bureaucratic agency?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I suggest you consider what 50 million gun owners can do to a few hundred politicians even if a sizeable chunk of the military decided to try and defend them, much less try to exert control over us...

I think that they would be as about as effective as the revolts against Saddam were, i.e., not at all. The vast majority of Iraqis had guns under Hussein. Having a gun is fairly meaningless if you don't know how to use it in combat, don't know how to participate in combat, and don't have command and control or air power.

No armed revolt in the U.S. could succeed unless the military was on its side.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
And where in the Constitution does it allow the Congress to abdicate its responsibility in such a way?

The part where it says Congress shall have. That kind of implies that only Congress will have. This is that same type of no brainer argument that the dirt bag Gonzales is currently making; he's claiming no where in the Constitution is the right to habeus corpus assured. Of course he ignores the part of the Constitution which says habeus corpus shall not be suspended except in the event of foreign invasion or rebellion. Declaring that it shall not be suspended indicates it is explicitely there.

[Berzerker]

I think that they would be as about as effective as the revolts against Saddam were, i.e., not at all. The vast majority of Iraqis had guns under Hussein. Having a gun is fairly meaningless if you don't know how to use it in combat, don't know how to participate in combat, and don't have command and control or air power.

No armed revolt in the U.S. could succeed unless the military was on its side.

Uh uh, Saddam had not only a loyal military he had an armed population supporting him. If the feds pissed off 50 million gun owners enough for a rebellion, the feds would not have a loyal military or an armed population for support.

Should Congress approve every hiring, every funding decision in every bureaucratic agency?

We aren't talking about hiring a janitor, we're talking about bureaucrats empowered to write regulations that we the people are required to obey. But yes, Congress spends money. Bureaucrats cannot appropriate money from the treasury to spend how they see fit.

Oerdin,

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Who has this power? Congress or bureaucrats?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is that same type of no brainer argument that the dirt bag Gonzales is currently making; he's claiming no where in the Constitution is the right to habeus corpus assured. Of course he ignores the part of the Constitution which says habeus corpus shall not be suspended except in the event of foreign invasion or rebellion. Declaring that it shall not be suspended indicates it is explicitely there.

wtf Oerdin?

[Petek]

I used to work for the Social Security Administration, so I know a little bit about how their regulations work. Can't say for sure that it's the same for all Federal agencies, though.

Congress passed the "Social Security Act", which contains all the basic laws, such as what types of benefits are available and who qualifies for them. One provision of the Act is:

SEC. 205. [42 U.S.C. 405] (a) The Commissioner of Social Security shall have full power and authority to make rules and regulations and to establish procedures, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title, which are necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions, and shall adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish the right to benefits hereunder.

So you see that any regulations issued by Social Security cannot conflict with the law passed by Congress.

Example: The Social Security Act specifies that a person must be at least 62 years old to qualify for retirement benefits. However, the Act doesn't state what specific evidence is needed to establish your age. Social Security issued regulations about this matter, specifying what evidence needs to be submitted. However, Social Security could not issue a regulation lowering the age requirement to 61 years, since that would conflict with the law passed by Congress.

IMO, it wouldn't make sense for Congress to make laws at that level of detail for every Federal Agency.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Gatekeeper]

WRT this story:

1. Best-case scenario — Yet another level of bureaucracy to contend with.

2. Worst-case scenario — Yet another power grab by Bush.

Gatekeeper

[Berzerker]

So you see that any regulations issued by Social Security cannot conflict with the law passed by Congress.

But regulations may be passed that are ~consistent with the law and Congress doesn't actually vote on those regulations. That is a transfer of power from those who can write laws to those who cant write laws.

Example: The Social Security Act specifies that a person must be at least 62 years old to qualify for retirement benefits. However, the Act doesn't state what specific evidence is needed to establish your age. Social Security issued regulations about this matter, specifying what evidence needs to be submitted. However, Social Security could not issue a regulation lowering the age requirement to 61 years, since that would conflict with the law passed by Congress.

Thats a good example, the Act should have specified what evidence of age is required, not the agency. Even if we assume Social Security is constitutional, bureaucrats dont get to decide what I have to do to comply with the program. Thats a law and Congress writes laws, not bureaucrats.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Should Congress approve every hiring, every funding decision in every bureaucratic agency?

[DinoDoc]

Why shouldn't they approve funding?