Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have their own little fiefdom going on, they write laws and regs, adjudicate offenders, deal out punishment, collect payments and fees; they are all three branches of our government all rolled into one.
And, I might add, they don't follow their own rules.
They have the Patriot Act to protect them from dissent in the ranks.
i think you need to go back and read what powers Congress gave to an agency before spouting off. When an agency oversteps it's bounds, it is sued and the courts determine if the agency has taken an unconstitutional stance. Yes, congress can amend what an agency can do at any time...but who is paying for the massive lobbying efforts to get those agencies amended.
Certainly not you and me.
Funny though that the agencies the right hates the most were passed and triumphed by Republicans in the late 60's and early 70's....
A big question I always like to ask....do you pay less now to prevent something or pay more later to fix something?
If you understand the question....
By your logic, congress could create any federal agency, grant it powers and it would be fine, as long as the president signing the agency into existence had the write party affiliation. Apparently, congress can create the Federal Bedrooms Agency, and the FBA can regulate our conduct in the bedroom, and this would be okay, cuz the president signed off on it. I'm a US citizen, not a party man, I'll oppose any actions from any president, regardless of his politics.
There appears to be a lack of understanding about regulatory agencies.
First and foremost, regulations must based upon existing statutory law. If a regulation exists that does not specifically cite which law it is based upon as its statutory authority, it cannot be enforced. No court will uphold any regulation that does not have statutory authority. The courts uphold the law, not the regulation it is based upon. If a regulation is changed, once it has been put into place, it can only be because the law it was based upon has also changed. If the statutory authority of a regulation does not change, then the regulatory agency would have an extremely difficult time justifying a change to the regulation.
Second, Congress does not enact regulations. Congress enacts laws, and the Executive Branch agencies interpret those laws and puts them into a form that can be enforced through regulations. Sometimes these regulations can have consequences that Congress had not intended. In such cases, it is the responsibility of Congress to change the law the regulation is based upon so that the regulation can be rewritten by the Executive Branch with the correct intent that Congress had in mind.
Lastly, the regulatory process is not subject to change upon a President's whim. There is a long process involved anytime a new regulation is created or when one is changed. Part of that lengthy process typically includes a public comment period, where the regulatory agency accepts input from the public on how their regulation will effect them, for good or for ill.
If not for regulations, the Executive Branch would not be able to do its primary job, which is the enforcement of the laws enacted by Congress. They are an essential part of government. So before criticizing the regulation, and the agency that created it, first read the statutory authority that regulation is based upon. If the regulation correctly interprets the law as enacted by Congress, then the fault lies with Congress, not with the regulatory agency.
The reason Obama is being blamed for any of this is because most people give the President far more authority than he actually has, and they do not understand the regulatory process.
There appears to be a lack of understanding about regulatory agencies.
First and foremost, regulations must based upon existing statutory law. If a regulation exists that does not specifically cite which law it is based upon as its statutory authority, it cannot be enforced. No court will uphold any regulation that does not have statutory authority. The courts uphold the law, not the regulation it is based upon.
Second, Congress does not enact regulations. Congress enacts laws, and the Executive Branch agencies interpret those laws and put them into a form that can be enforced through regulations. Sometimes these regulations can have consequences that Congress had not intended. In such cases, it is the responsibility of Congress to change the law the regulation is based upon so that the regulation can be rewritten by the Executive Branch with the correct intent that Congress had in mind.
Lastly, the regulatory process is not subject to change upon a President's whim. There is a long process involved anytime a new regulation is created or when one is changed. Part of that lengthy process typically includes a public comment period, where the regulatory agency accepts input from the public on how their regulation will effect them, for good or for ill.
If not for regulations, the Executive Branch would not be able to do its primary job, which is the enforcement of the laws enacted by Congress. They are an essential part of government. So before criticizing the regulation, and the agency that created it, first read the statutory authority that regulation is based upon. If the regulation correctly interprets the law as enacted by Congress, then the fault lies with Congress, not with the regulatory agency.
The reason Obama is being blamed for any of this is because most people give the President far more authority than he actually has, and they do not understand the regulatory process.
Sounds like you went to school, but never held a job.
That isn't how it works in the real world.
You should take a graduate course in Figure Skating The Regs.
There appears to be a lack of understanding about regulatory agencies.
First and foremost, regulations must based upon existing statutory law. If a regulation exists that does not specifically cite which law it is based upon as its statutory authority, it cannot be enforced. No court will uphold any regulation that does not have statutory authority. The courts uphold the law, not the regulation it is based upon. If a regulation is changed, once it has been put into place, it can only be because the law it was based upon has also changed. If the statutory authority of a regulation does not change, then the regulatory agency would have an extremely difficult time justifying a change to the regulation.
Second, Congress does not enact regulations. Congress enacts laws, and the Executive Branch agencies interpret those laws and puts them into a form that can be enforced through regulations. Sometimes these regulations can have consequences that Congress had not intended. In such cases, it is the responsibility of Congress to change the law the regulation is based upon so that the regulation can be rewritten by the Executive Branch with the correct intent that Congress had in mind.
Lastly, the regulatory process is not subject to change upon a President's whim. There is a long process involved anytime a new regulation is created or when one is changed. Part of that lengthy process typically includes a public comment period, where the regulatory agency accepts input from the public on how their regulation will effect them, for good or for ill.
If not for regulations, the Executive Branch would not be able to do its primary job, which is the enforcement of the laws enacted by Congress. They are an essential part of government. So before criticizing the regulation, and the agency that created it, first read the statutory authority that regulation is based upon. If the regulation correctly interprets the law as enacted by Congress, then the fault lies with Congress, not with the regulatory agency.
The reason Obama is being blamed for any of this is because most people give the President far more authority than he actually has, and they do not understand the regulatory process.
/fail
Create EPA to enforce pollution laws for air water and ground, and the FDA to regulate food, then these agencies can create any regulation they please, as long as it is still regulating food, air and water. There is no end to what they can do, cuz congress just handed them the keys. That is where they went wrong, abdicating congressional responsibility and giving these agencies complete an utter control.
Create EPA to enforce pollution laws for air water and ground, and the FDA to regulate food, then these agencies can create any regulation they please, as long as it is still regulating food, air and water. There is no end to what they can do, cuz congress just handed them the keys. That is where they went wrong, abdicating congressional responsibility and giving these agencies complete an utter control.
Create EPA to enforce pollution laws for air water and ground, and the FDA to regulate food, then these agencies can create any regulation they please, as long as it is still regulating food, air and water. There is no end to what they can do, cuz congress just handed them the keys. That is where they went wrong, abdicating congressional responsibility and giving these agencies complete an utter control.
/fail
Every regulation is subject to judicial review. There are tons of rules and regulations about how they can create rules, what they must do, etc.
All the D.C. Circuit does, pretty much, is oversee agencies.
By your logic, congress could create any federal agency, grant it powers and it would be fine, as long as the president signing the agency into existence had the write party affiliation. Apparently, congress can create the Federal Bedrooms Agency, and the FBA can regulate our conduct in the bedroom, and this would be okay, cuz the president signed off on it. I'm a US citizen, not a party man, I'll oppose any actions from any president, regardless of his politics.
getmeoutofthere touched on this as well. unfortunately congress can try and do a lot of things that are unconstitutional....
ummm...how about trying to step into a private issue between a man, his in-laws and wife, who was lying in a coma for years....
three branches of government...but poor choice of an example as the SCOTUS already struck down the gov'ts ability to regulate 'bedroom' activity via that great 'state' and their 'sodomy' law used to go after gays.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
