Posted on 04/15/2016 1:29:08 PM PDT by MosesKnows
There are times in the process of learning something when I feel I have learned enough to feel confident I have a grasp of the topic. Not so much learning that I feel comfortable sharing what I’ve learned with others. I am on the cusp of such an event.
That event is coming to grips with what the Progressive Movement’s political agenda. I feel I have a handle on the basic tenets of Progressive Movements. However, I now find myself informed enough to engage in a discussion regarding the Progressive Movements notion of bringing about change administratively rather than legislatively through the courts.
The Progressive Movement believes there is no longer a reason to confine Congress’s legislative powers to only the “Powers herein granted” the founders granted them in the Constitution. (Why did the founders limit the legislative powers?)
My first awareness of administrative government came from a radio interview with Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Awareness is all it was because I didn’t fully understand the implications. (2001 Obama WBEZ Interview Redistribution Wealth)
Senator Obama felt the Constitution’s flaw was that it did not obligate the government to redistribute wealth. Senator Obama’s view was that correcting this flaw administratively would avoid the problems encountered using the legislative process the Constitution provides. Frankly, it meant very little to me at the time.
Here is what it means to me now.
Congress creates government agencies and gives these agencies the power to promulgate rules that carry the full force of law.
All government agencies report to the president. The president can and in the case of President Obama, does use Executive Orders to circumvent legislation.
If an agency charges you with a rule violation, the agency serves as the legislator because they wrote the rule, the executive because they enforce the rule and the judiciary because they determine guilt or innocent. There is no elected entity involved in the process.
The problem is not w/ the executive, it is w/ the legislative.
The legislative branch can limit the administrative branch.
The administrative branch cannot limit the legislative branch.
(presidential veto being the only exception)
Well, you’re getting there. Now go back a little further in history. All of the agencies were created by Congress to delegate their legislative responsibility to the Executive Office so they could avoid voting on unpopular legislation to retain their seats come election time.
That’s one more little piece to add to your awareness. The whole progressive/socialist agenda was put into motion in the early 1900’s and has been escalating dangerously in the past decade.
Next thing to know is that Congress members are permitted to engage in insider trading. They can pass laws that will harm one industry and benefit another, and profit from it on the stock market.
It has been awhile since I've read it, but it covers much of what you have written, and how FDR worked the administration end of things to implement the New Deal.
And a lot of the booklet could have been referring to obama. Many of FDR's comments were/are mimicked by obama.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. There's a couple names for this: shadow government, dark government, 4th branch of government etc.
Administrative rule making in the federal departments has co-opted the legitimate branches of government. The question is how much leeway the executive departments have which is determined by the legislative.
Take Obama's gun control actions. Now, the legislative has kept a pretty tight rein on that. Which is why after whichever mass shooting, Obama could only change administrative procedures for the ATF in how they did business. Slow down FFL applications etc. Nothing that overtly abridged 2nd amendment rights, just making things difficult.
It's a different story with departments like the EPA and the BLM. They do have widespread authority like you described to act as legislator, judge, jury and executioner.
Administrative agency rules are "enabled" by law, they aren't law, themselves. The admin law can be challenged just like a statute can, except an admin law can be found unconstitutional because it goes beyond what the statutory law allowed the admin agency to regulate, and this basis for rejection isn't present when challenging a statute.
I noticed a post that mentioned the accountability ducking nature of this system, and I agree with that completely. Congress delegates everything it can. A good chunk of the legislation it passes comes from the executive branch, admin agencies, and special interests. The courts are in on it too, advise Congress what magic words to use so unconstitutional laws can be converted into constitutional ones.
The courts have endorsed the admin agency approach to drafting legislation.
For example, Section 2(d)(1)(A) of the Tailor Act:
IN GENERAL.—The Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies shall individually report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, within twelve months of enactment of this section and annually thereafter, on the specific actions taken to tailor the agency’s regulatory actions pursuant to the requirements of this section.
There is more stuff like this in the bill, which can be read here.
Tipton also mentioned something about using things like this to reign in the "Waters of the U.S." crap.
"Permitted" is an enabling act.
"Prohibited" is a proactive act.
We're dealing with a conscious choice in the RICO category.
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.