Posted on 02/04/2016 9:28:06 AM PST by reaganaut1
Among the many reasons to oppose administrative law are that it can be changed just by the president’s diktats (through rules promulgated by his bureaucrats) and that this can be done merely to help political allies and hurt political opponents.
That’s not how our government was designed.
Under the Constitution, laws are supposed to be made and changed by the legislature, not by the president and his unelected minions. The phenomenon of administrative law takes us back to the days of Crown Government. (I recommend Frank Buckley’s book The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America.)
The latest abomination in this regard is a proposed rule by the Department of Labor. It would compel businesses to reveal the names of any outside attorneys or labor relations consulting firms they contract with. Then, the identified attorneys and consultants would have to publicly disclose all other similar clients and how much they were paid for their services.
There is nothing illegal in contracting with attorneys and consultants who advise management on the legalities of and tactics relating to fending off unionization. But with time running out in the Obama administration to do favors for Big Labor, the Labor Department wants to do as much as it can to deter companies from dealing with such specialists.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Far be it from me to defend Obama, but the ABA is only worried about the lost fees when their members decide to scramble out of the sunlight.
“Even The American Bar Association Loathes This New Obama Rule”
HORSECLINTON.
If they WERE, they’d tell us how the Fraud president and his “wife” lost their law licenses.
An Obama Rule is not a law. As such, it can be and should be ignored.
1st, 4th and 5th ammendment...
Whether I agree with the legal profession or anyone else, this is exactly what I meant the other day on a thread where the question was: “Are we a Constitutional Republic, or are we a Banana Republic?â€
I maintain we are a Banana Republic.
When laws passed by a legally representative legislature pass laws on the behalf of the people, and the government decides by fiat which to enforce and which not to enforce (See: Obama Department of “Justice†for more examples) then we are no longer a Constitutional Republic.
This is how Executive Orders are being used since January 2009.
Considering we have a fruit for president, I agree—banana republic it is.
“I recommend Frank Buckley’s book The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America”
That book seems to be an ode to the parliamentary system.
http://faculty.law.gmu.edu/fbuckley/
Exceprts from the book
The author seems to support “fidelity to the intentions of the Framers”
But then goes on
“Congress should impeach and remove presidents often. When their policies fail, when they are touched with scandal, or for no reason, just for the spirit of the thing.”
Dafuq?
Precisely...they could have stopped him years ago.. But they have always been beneficiaries of his policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.