House Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 08, 2011 2:01 AM GMT
    House Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/house-passes-bill-to-grant-congress-veto-power_n_1135030.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2011 2:17 AM GMT
    metta8 saidHouse Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/house-passes-bill-to-grant-congress-veto-power_n_1135030.html


    It won't go anywhere in the Senate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2011 2:31 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    r3dsn0w said
    metta8 saidHouse Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/house-passes-bill-to-grant-congress-veto-power_n_1135030.html


    It won't go anywhere in the Senate.



    Yeah. Harry Reid and the Democrats haven't even put a budget through the Senate in 3 years. icon_rolleyes.gif


    tumblr_lgbith0wC61qf8yek.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 08, 2011 7:32 AM GMT
    It really looks more and more like the Republicans will control the House and the Senate after the 2012 elections. Things could of course change, but it will be very difficult to change this. This may be a sign of things to come.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2011 8:07 PM GMT
    metta8 saidIt really looks more and more like the Republicans will control the House and the Senate after the 2012 elections. Things could of course change, but it will be very difficult to change this. This may be a sign of things to come.


    Its looking good for the GOP next year for Congress. If we can get the White House back too, you are going to see investments go sky high in this country.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 08, 2011 8:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    metta8 saidHouse Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/house-passes-bill-to-grant-congress-veto-power_n_1135030.html


    I'm not sure you totally understand what the bill is about.

    It's about giving our elected representatives some control over the 4th branch of the Federal government, the bureaucracy. Should this ever become law (which it probably won't), it would stop things like the EPA implementing regulations in lieu of "Cap and Trade" being passed into law (something that Obama wanted passed during the Pelosi-Reid control of Congress days, but they didn't quite get to it).

    Things like 6 pages of Obamacare turning into 429 pages of regulations is screaming for some restraint. This bill attempts to do that.


    Can you spell OVER-REACH?

    In our style of representative government? You know the one that the founding Fathers you guys always bring up and misquote? Those guys?

    Well they kinda made a thing called the three branches of government with checks and balances along the way
    And when the legislative branch does something stupid like I dunno make laws to take away useful and needed things like Social Security and Medicare ... The Executive branch has the power to veto that stupidity
    And if the Legislative branch gels very strongly about that stupidity they can get enough like minded stupid people to over rule the Executive Veto

    Your lesson in stupid things that republicans do is over
  • lawguypany

    Posts: 6

    Dec 08, 2011 8:36 PM GMT
    There is one thing y'all are all forgetting. The power to issue regulations is Congressional in delegation in the Constitution.

    There is no question that Congress may delegate a decision to an executive agency, however, that also means that Congress can withdraw the agencies' powers, largely at will, and keep them to themselves.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 08, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    lawguypany saidThere is one thing y'all are all forgetting. The power to issue regulations is Congressional in delegation in the Constitution.

    There is no question that Congress may delegate a decision to an executive agency, however, that also means that Congress can withdraw the agencies' powers, largely at will, and keep them to themselves.


    And that would be different from Assad in Syria in what way?
  • lawguypany

    Posts: 6

    Dec 09, 2011 8:27 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    lawguypany saidThere is one thing y'all are all forgetting. The power to issue regulations is Congressional in delegation in the Constitution.

    There is no question that Congress may delegate a decision to an executive agency, however, that also means that Congress can withdraw the agencies' powers, largely at will, and keep them to themselves.


    And that would be different from Assad in Syria in what way?


    There is a world of difference between Assad and this bill. First off, Assad is an executive with almost absolute power. The US Congress is a group of 535 human beings, with, at minimum, 1070 different agendas. What this bill would do is take certain decisions that have been delegated out of Congress' power, and return those decisions to Congress.

    Here, Congress had the power to make the various rules and regulations. As the Federal Government's Administrative wing grew, it grew as Congress passed bill after bill to the Presidents, who enacted the bills into law. The bills took power that traditionally Congressional, and delegated those powers to unelected bureaucrats. For example, the Clean Water Act took Congress' power to regulate water cleanliness standards, and handed that power over to the EPA. It was Congress' power, originally, but Congress gave that power to someone else.

    This act simply limits the power of agencies to exercise the rulemaking power. Agencies make rule after rule about many topics that fall under their purview. This bill would require any rule that costs over $100 Million to be approved by the Congress before it could go into effect. That's all it does. It merely limits the power of agencies, who are empowered to act in the stead of Congress, when the cost to implement the rule is greater than $100 Million.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 09, 2011 10:58 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]CHRISTOPHER34 said...Its looking good for the GOP next year for Congress. If we can get the White House back too... [/quote]




    where DO you live again?


    Orlando, FL?


    at FANTASYLAND inside Wally World?


    icon_lol.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 09, 2011 11:50 AM GMT
    You couldn't pick another Executive branch dept?
    It had to be the EPA? ... LOL

    A bit of a republican Freudian slip?
    It couldn't be say something like the Bush era wiretapping of civilians ?
    Or any of the clear breaches of the Bill of Rights that occurred under our last Presidency?
    It had to be the EPA which THIS Congress especially would LOVE LOVE LOVE to abolish
    Just as aside the EPA was started by a certain someone with an R after his name

    Sorry my man Congress create-eth and Congress take-eth away doesn't bode well with the Constitution's separatism of Powers
    Whether it's within their Power to DO something doesn't mean that it is correct
    We have a whole history of things that were passed by Congress that we can look back on and say Holy Crap that was BAD
  • lawguypany

    Posts: 6

    Dec 09, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    GQjock saidYou couldn't pick another Executive branch dept?
    It had to be the EPA? ... LOL

    A bit of a republican Freudian slip?
    It couldn't be say something like the Bush era wiretapping of civilians ?
    Or any of the clear breaches of the Bill of Rights that occurred under our last Presidency?
    It had to be the EPA which THIS Congress especially would LOVE LOVE LOVE to abolish
    Just as aside the EPA was started by a certain someone with an R after his name

    Sorry my man Congress create-eth and Congress take-eth away doesn't bode well with the Constitution's separatism of Powers
    Whether it's within their Power to DO something doesn't mean that it is correct
    We have a whole history of things that were passed by Congress that we can look back on and say Holy Crap that was BAD


    You are right, the EPA was a convenient, if bad, example. I could have chosen any other federal agency, especially ones I actually dislike, like the NLRB. However, my point is this: first, this is Congress saying "We don't want to handle this issue, so we're going to let the President and his/her appointees deal with this, instead of passing legislation ourselves; and second, that the idea of an administrative state is of questionable validity in our system of separation of powers; and third, Congress should be the one putting these rules forth in the first place, not faceless bureaucrats.

    I support this legislation because I think it takes power that Congress decided to give to the President and puts it back in the hands of Congress. I may not be a fan of the current Congress, but they are, at least, elected to make laws, not hand those decisions over to an administrative agency.

    I may not agree with a lot of what Congress does, and there's a line stretching from here to the farthest reaches of the multiverse of Congressional Acts with which I disagree, but it is Congress' job to regulate things, and to pass legislation, even if I disagree strongly with it. I don't like Obamacare, or the New Deal or the Great Society, but I grudgingly accept that Congress had the power to write that legislation and pass it through Congress, and get it signed into law. Congress can, and does, pass legislation regardless of what we think of that legislation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2011 2:45 AM GMT
    lawguypany said
    GQjock saidYou couldn't pick another Executive branch dept?
    It had to be the EPA? ... LOL

    A bit of a republican Freudian slip?
    It couldn't be say something like the Bush era wiretapping of civilians ?
    Or any of the clear breaches of the Bill of Rights that occurred under our last Presidency?
    It had to be the EPA which THIS Congress especially would LOVE LOVE LOVE to abolish
    Just as aside the EPA was started by a certain someone with an R after his name

    Sorry my man Congress create-eth and Congress take-eth away doesn't bode well with the Constitution's separatism of Powers
    Whether it's within their Power to DO something doesn't mean that it is correct
    We have a whole history of things that were passed by Congress that we can look back on and say Holy Crap that was BAD


    You are right, the EPA was a convenient, if bad, example. I could have chosen any other federal agency, especially ones I actually dislike, like the NLRB. However, my point is this: first, this is Congress saying "We don't want to handle this issue, so we're going to let the President and his/her appointees deal with this, instead of passing legislation ourselves; and second, that the idea of an administrative state is of questionable validity in our system of separation of powers; and third, Congress should be the one putting these rules forth in the first place, not faceless bureaucrats.

    I support this legislation because I think it takes power that Congress decided to give to the President and puts it back in the hands of Congress. I may not be a fan of the current Congress, but they are, at least, elected to make laws, not hand those decisions over to an administrative agency.

    I may not agree with a lot of what Congress does, and there's a line stretching from here to the farthest reaches of the multiverse of Congressional Acts with which I disagree, but it is Congress' job to regulate things, and to pass legislation, even if I disagree strongly with it. I don't like Obamacare, or the New Deal or the Great Society, but I grudgingly accept that Congress had the power to write that legislation and pass it through Congress, and get it signed into law. Congress can, and does, pass legislation regardless of what we think of that legislation.


    Does Congress have the knowledge, wisdom, time, or patience to write the fine print of various regulations for the general welfare? There are thousands of poisons and other contaminants that industry would happily dump into your water (at great cost savings). Each with different toxicity. It takes a team of professionals such as PhDs and MDs to figure out what is or is not "safe" and many of them work their entire career in public service. Do you really want lobbyists to give those specifications to congress members at election fundraisers?