Make Regulations Subject To Approval By Congress

ConservativeAlerts.Com ^ | Conservative Alerts

[webber]

This is another possibly controversial topic. Please, If you are going to comment on this aricle, give your reasons WHY you believe what you posted, and keep your postS ON SUBJECT. Use the "Private Response Link" if it is a post that isn't ON SUBJECT. THANX.

[inquest]

First, it would restore a measure of Democracy to this democratic Republic in which we live. The system of government established by our forefathers requires that people be bound only by those laws enacted by lawmakers they elect.

Second, it corrects a serious violation of the Constitution: Article I, Section 1 states that "ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" (emphasis added). The Section, moreover, makes clear that the legislative power includes the power to regulate.

Finally, it stops bad regulations: Delegation encourages Congress to enact statutes that promise to be everything to all people. Elected officials can claim credit for the promises while blaming bureaucrats for bad regulation. No more, if this bill passes.

I would add a fourth specific problem that this practice causes: It aids large corporations at the expense of smaller businesses. The giganticorps usually are the ones effectively making the regulations through their hired proxies in government, and if they're not making them, they at least have advanced insider information on how they're being made, so they can plan their operations accordingly. In either case, they have teams of laywers not available to their much smaller counterparts, which enable them to comply with these regulations without a hitch, whereas the family-run outfits are either getting themselves into legal trouble or severly hampering their operations by trying to avoid the risk of committing a violation.

[Grut]

"Congressional Responsibility Act"

Its doom is in its name.

[Roscoe]

Two points: Regulatory volume would overburden Congressional resources; any Congressman who gives a darn can already partipate in the public rulemaking process that precedes the creation of most federal regulations.

[inquest]

Regulatory volume would overburden Congressional resources

Exactamundo!! Hence, regulatory volume is what will have to give way, not congressional accountability. Besides, it's what the Constitution requires.

[rwfromkansas]

I oppose this.

It also stops the possibility of good regulations.

[cake_crumb]

"The bill forces congressional compliance with Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants sole legislative power to Congress, by requiring all regulations to return to Congress for approval before they become effective"

It's a great idea. Therefore, like the Sunset Act, which would have required Congress to look over older laws (like the Endangered Species Act) and AXE them if they are no longer required, it will not pass. Too many union jobs depend on non-elected entities making regulations which require billions of $$$ and more union-backed, red tape jockies to "enforce". Look at artificial mess in Klamath. Look at EPA regulations which ave given us the massive wildfires of the past few years. Bureaucrats love a bureaucracy.

For what it's worth, I'd like to see it pass, but won't hold my breath.

[gcruse]

Well, let's just switch to parliamentary government and be done with it. Who needs all the gridlock anyway?

[Roscoe]

Hence, regulatory volume is what will have to give way

No, it won't.

[Skywalk]

Good regulations, eh?

Yeah, we really need those thousands of pages of federal regulations.

[inquest]

Then that's Congress' problem. They can either cut back on the burden they impose on us, or be burdened themselves. I've always had a weakness for poetic justice, myself.

[Roscoe]

Then that's Congress' problem.

Then it's ours.

[inquest]

How so? Why should we care if Congressmen have no free time on their hands? That's between them and their families.

[Roscoe]

That's between them and their families.

Their constituents be damned, heh?

[rwfromkansas]

Some of the things Dubya has done that is good is through executive orders and regulations of departments.

[inquest]

How much time a congressman allows for his constituents is up to his constituents. That part won't change, if he knows what's good for him.

[Roscoe]

How much time a congressman allows for his constituents is up to his constituents.

The time is availble to perform the functions for which they elected him is inadequate to cover ministerial minutia.

[inquest]

If our congressman considers communicating with his constituents to be ministerial minutiae, his constituents might have other ideas in mind for him.

[Roscoe]

communicating with his constituents to be ministerial minutiae

Backwards. Regulatory functions are ministerial.

[inquest]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. So when you said, "The time is availble to perform the functions for which they elected him is inadequate to cover ministerial minutia," you meant to say that it would be inadequate to perform their regulatory functions? Because that was my point; it would be inadequate for that purpose, and hence they would have to scale back their regulatory activities. Their constituents would only allow them so much time for that.