Posted on 12/17/2013 4:40:37 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
After decades of debate, questions may finally be answered about whether anti-bacterial soaps — used daily in homes, schools and elsewhere — are safe. It's an important issue because many health officials say the products offer no benefit over washing with regular soap and water.
The Food and Drug Administration on Monday proposed a rule that would force makers of anti-bacterial hand soaps and body washes to prove with clinical studies that their productsare both safe to use and more effective than regular soap in preventing illness and the spread of infections. If manufacturers can't prove their claims, the products need to be reformulated or relabeled, the FDA said.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.chicagotribune.com ...
Administrative rule-making at the federal level began in the mid-19th century in response to criticisms that federal agencies were making decisions on an inconsistent, ad hoc basis, and often letting patronage and favoritism determine the outcome. You claim that administrative rule-making as a reform against such practices is contrary to the founders’ intent. On what specific documents and reasoning do you base that assertion?
Where do you get the idea you have interpreted my position accurately?
If I am in error, please provide correction by stating your views clearly and directly. Reference to specific primary sources in support of those views would also be helpful.
You can’t determine my position from my previous posts?
You queried: “Where do you get the idea you have interpreted my position accurately?” Again, if I have interpreted your position inaccurately in any respect, please point to the particulars.
What makes you think I haven’t clearly stated my position in the thread?
Have you considered that my first statement is clear enough?
Do you think the first, clear principles evident from the text and historical tyranny faced by the founders are reason enough to believe they supported the notion that all legislation should be vested in regularly elected representatives and not a bureaucracy?
As we are the only ones participating in this thread now, it seems we are talking past each other, doesn’t it?
YOU queried: “Where do you get the idea you have interpreted my position accurately?” MY response was to ask where you thought I had gone wrong. And to that, you have declined to offer any correction.
What makes you think I haven’t clearly stated my position in the thread?
Have you considered that my first statement is clear enough?
Do you think the first, clear principles evident from the text and historical tyranny faced by the founders are reason enough to believe they supported the notion that all legislation should be vested in regularly elected representatives and not a bureaucracy?
As we are the only ones participating in this thread now, it seems we are talking past each other, doesn’t it?
Apart from the slender and equivocal words of the Constitution, what original source materials do you see as supporting your position that Congress may not delegate rule-making power to federal agencies?
Why do you insist the words “all legislative power” are equivocal? Why do you not consider agencies go beyond “rule-making” and are creating law?
I guess I am done asking you questions, as you’re unwilling or unable to answer the previous ones.
Maybe a closer reading of the history and context of the writing of the Constitution would help you understand.
Good luck.
Big pharm has been trying to get rid of triclosan and tricloban in soaps for years, just as they've tried to get rid of the nutritional supplement industry. It's all about replacing them with more expensive by-prescription products.
“Triclocarban in antibacterial/antifungal bath soap may cause male sex organs to increase significantly in size”
I’ll be back in a few minutes. I’ve got to go wash my “junk”.
Congress exercises its legislative power when it establishes administrative agencies, enacts statutes to regulate them, and when provides appropriations and other funds for their operation. Your argument comes down to insisting that Congress’s legislative power does not extend to requiring administrative agencies to adopt substantive rules. Nothing in the Constitution says that and you are unable to point to any original contemporaneous sources to that effect.
Refer to post 70. Ad infinitum.
" . . . The Supreme Court has sometimes declared categorically that “the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated.” On other occasions, however, it has recognized more forthrightly, as Chief Justice Marshall did in 1825, that, although Congress may not delegate powers that “are strictly and exclusively legislative,” it may delegate “powers which [it] may rightfully exercise itself.” The former statement has never been literally true, the Court having upheld the delegation at issue in the very case in which the statement was made. The Court has long recognized that administration of the law requires exercise of discretion, and that, “in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.” The real issue is where to draw the line.
Chief Justice Marshall recognized “that there is some difficulty in discerning the exact limits,” and that “the precise boundary of this power is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry, into which a court will not enter unnecessarily.” Accordingly, the Court’s solution has been to reject delegation challenges in all but the most extreme cases, and to accept delegations of vast powers to the President or to administrative agencies. With the exception of a brief period in the 1930s when the Court was striking down New Deal legislation on a variety of grounds, the Court has consistently upheld grants of authority that have been challenged as invalid delegations of legislative power." Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - Centennial Edition, p. 76, GPO, June 26, 2013
Call me ignorant, but I think that Chief Justice Marshall and more than two centuries of Supreme Court decisions are right about what the Constitution provides as to the delegation of legislative power by Congress. If you have credible evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
Some new low flow toilets actually do a decent job, surprisingly. I’ve been looking at houses for my mom, went into a renovated 40 year old brick ranch out in the country that had been thoroughly updated, the new toilets worked great, very pronounced “whoosh,” no need to flush twice at all. It had to have some sort of pressurization assist or forced air. No pressure tank on a wellwater system would do that, that I’m aware.
The Supreme Court has sometimes declared categorically that “the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated.”
Then it goes on to say that it also has contradicted that very notion.
Of course I would grant the first notion is right and the second is mistaken.
You still refuse to answer the previous questions, apparently.
What question?
I don’t care if they do a terrific job. It’s none of the government’s business.
This is the natural tendency of bureaucracy.
Grow in to an unstoppable leviathan.
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.