• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

AdamT said:
It means that Congress passes laws and the executive branch passes regulations to implement those laws.

"Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

"Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Click to expand...


:lol: Whut? No no... you misunderstood. Show me where it states in the constitution that "Congress cannot participate directly in the administrative law process".

Let me point you to
Article 1, Section 8: The congress shall have the power....

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Therefore Congress CAN in fact make a law that would incorporate the EPA as a part of the Government and not an independent entity, and provide oversight. The EPA is not part of the Executive branch, it is an "Independent Agency".

Official US Executive Branch Web Sites - Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room (Serial and Government Publications Division, Library of Congress)

(scroll down, bottom left under "Independent Agencies")


So, now that this is all cleared up, not only is it possible that Congress CAN legislate the EPA oversight, it SHOULD in my opinion as well.
 
AdamT said:
Speaking for myself, the only problem with the status quo is that there are too many republicans in Congress, and the ones who are there are far too willing to sacrifice the good of the country in order to score a point against Obama.
Click to expand...

I concur. While I like Ron Paul's position of defense, I agree with him about nothing else.
 
vauge said:
Would you buy heroin because it was cool? Does your belief system say that no-matter-what you will stay with the bank you have regardless if they screw you over? Hopefully the answer is no, but in your world you do not get to make those decisions. Your government does.

Reality is actually quite the opposite. There are only 3 or 4 banks overall. We can't tell them to get lost if we wanted to. We walk down the street and it is just another subsidiary of the one we were at. However, we've become complacent. It is the role of the market to dictate what is best for everyone. Corps have more protection than we do from doing things that would otherwise shut them down in a New York minute. Were we to do them, we would go to jail. Gov is there to protect you, not make your *decisions* for you. Corporations are not bad, they are just overly protected and that needs to end. They do wrong because they can and they need to be held accountable for those wrongs.

Having limits and rules and regulations are very good things when they make sense. Many libertarians are not advocating zero regulations/laws. Creating regulations and laws because they profit others is a very bad thing. For instance, private buying of raw milk is a federal law because it forces the population to purchase from an industry - that is just plain wrong in my book. I should be able to buy raw milk *and* from whomever I damn well chose.
Click to expand...

Because I do have respect for Ron Paul, unlike with Bachmann, I have taken the time to carefully review his policies platform on his website. I found nothing there I agree with but his defense platform. But, while I don't think he has a chance at to win either the nomination or the general election, I still admire him for his stance on defense and his honesty.
 
teamosil said:
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with that. In my experience, less government means less free and less responsible people. The most essential functions of government in my view are to stop corporations from oppressing people and to force corporations to take responsibility for damage they cause. That means fighting for freedom and responsibility.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion and you present good arguments, but from my point of view your position is very scary and part of the problem with our current system. The idea of overall regulation is good and grand in theory. Reality, IMO, is that it is very political and pockets always get filled with tax monies often with the premise of "health or overall good of the people". The only moral way to regulation is to remove that giant $$ handout temptation.
 
Demon of Light said:
Source: USA Today

What is really impressive is that Paul was a mere 150 votes from winning himself. Unfortunately the fact he did not win gives the media an excuse to focus on the big win for Bachmann and the big loss for Pawlenty while completely glossing over the runner-up and the polls putting him third at 16% in Iowa.
Click to expand...

The one and only moderate with any independent voter appeal finished in the middle of the pack. It's not too early to call 2012 for Obama.

Well done Tea Party, everything you touch turns to crap. Thanks for the AA rating BTW.
 
teamosil said:
You want congresspeople like figuring out the details of environmental regulations? That would be a total disaster... What do they know about it? They aren't even scientists....

No, the role of Congress is to set general goals and make adjustments when something is going out of whack, not to micromanage everything.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't give Congress the power to micromanage everything, but it would be good to have these agencies under some sort of Congressional oversight. What we have now is bureaucrats making policy decisions that have the force of law. These people are not elected, and therefore not accountable to the voters or the people. Some Congressional oversight means that there is someone who is accountable involved in the process.
 
hazlnut said:
The one and only moderate with any independent voter appeal finished in the middle of the pack. It's not too early to call 2012 for Obama.

Well done Tea Party, everything you touch turns to crap. Thanks for the AA rating BTW.
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was the Republicans and the Democrats who ran up the debt. Now, I'm finding out that the Tea Part[ies] did it. My, oh, my!
 
Ockham said:
:lol: Whut? No no... you misunderstood. Show me where it states in the constitution that "Congress cannot participate directly in the administrative law process".

Let me point you to
Article 1, Section 8: The congress shall have the power....

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Therefore Congress CAN in fact make a law that would incorporate the EPA as a part of the Government and not an independent entity, and provide oversight. The EPA is not part of the Executive branch, it is an "Independent Agency".

Official US Executive Branch Web Sites - Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room (Serial and Government Publications Division, Library of Congress)

(scroll down, bottom left under "Independent Agencies")


So, now that this is all cleared up, not only is it possible that Congress CAN legislate the EPA oversight, it SHOULD in my opinion as well.
Click to expand...

Okay, my bad. You are right -- EPA is and independent agency and not an executive agency. That means that the President can appoint the head of the agency but he can only remove the head of the agency for cause.

Nonetheless, you're still not getting it. Congress passes laws. Sometimes those laws include ENABLING CLAUSES which delegate authority to agencies -- executive and/or independent -- to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the laws. The promulgation of regulations is carried out in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) -- another law passed by Congress. Once Congress has delegated the authority to promulgate regulations, it cannot undelegate that authority without passing another law.

What Congress cannot do is assume an executive function, such as overseeing an agency's day-to-day operation. You seem to want to divorce the bolded sentence in Art. 1, Sec. 8 from the first part of the sentence, which you cannot do. "All other powers" is modified by, "Congress shall have to power to make all laws...." In other words, Congress power is limited to legislating. They do not have the power to run agencies.

Again, if they want to cancel a regulation they can do that by amending the law or passing a new law. They can't intervene directly in the promulgation of regulations.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
And here I thought it was the Republicans and the Democrats who ran up the debt. Now, I'm finding out that the Tea Part[ies] did it. My, oh, my!
Click to expand...

The TPs misunderstandings about basic economics prevented real solutions from being considered.

And just so you know, the TP is nothing more than a rebranding of the GOP so disenfranchised RW voters will come back into the fold.
 
vauge said:
I respect your opinion and you present good arguments, but from my point of view your position is very scary and part of the problem with our current system. The idea of overall regulation is good and grand in theory. Reality, IMO, is that it is very political and pockets always get filled with tax monies often with the premise of "health or overall good of the people". The only moral way to regulation is to remove that giant $$ handout temptation.
Click to expand...

I dunno. It's not like we're in Mexico or something. I'm sure there are situations, mostly at the county or city level, where politicians actually do give contracts to companies that bribed them or something, but I certainly don't think it is common, and I think it's almost unheard of at the federal level.
 
rocket88 said:
I wouldn't give Congress the power to micromanage everything, but it would be good to have these agencies under some sort of Congressional oversight. What we have now is bureaucrats making policy decisions that have the force of law. These people are not elected, and therefore not accountable to the voters or the people. Some Congressional oversight means that there is someone who is accountable involved in the process.
Click to expand...

See I think there is that level of congressional oversight. They periodically have hearings about various EPA things. They can and do pass laws to change direction on various issues, to expand or contract discretion where they feel it is appropriate. The reality is that most the stuff the EPA does is below Congress's radar and beyond their expertise. Like "should this particular chemical be allowed in this industrial process or not?" type questions. Congress wouldn't add anything to those kinds of questions at all. They'd just politicize what should be handled by experts IMO.
 
teamosil said:
I dunno. It's not like we're in Mexico or something. I'm sure there are situations, mostly at the county or city level, where politicians actually do give contracts to companies that bribed them or something, but I certainly don't think it is common, and I think it's almost unheard of at the federal level.
Click to expand...
I think you may be in denial. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but a business man. BTW, have you heard of the word lobbyist? Do you know what they do?
 
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., won the Iowa Straw poll on Saturday, turning aside a surge by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and maintaining the momenum with her rising campaign.
Click to expand...
Woohooo! Best thing that could have happened ... for Democrats. There was no one loonier on that stage.
 
AdamT said:
Nonetheless, you're still not getting it. Congress passes laws. Sometimes those laws include ENABLING CLAUSES which delegate authority to agencies -- executive and/or independent -- to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the laws. The promulgation of regulations is carried out in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) -- another law passed by Congress. Once Congress has delegated the authority to promulgate regulations, it cannot undelegate that authority without passing another law.
Click to expand...
No really... I DO get it. It's still unconstitutional. Look I'm not one of these conttitutional conservatives, but our government has delegated away so much of it's authority and functions to independent agencies that Congress now has too much time to bicker over bull****. It's time they start doing their jobs and as a result of that, they will cut down the amount of work they need by trimming the size of the government. See it has this domino effect.

AdamT said:
What Congress cannot do is assume an executive function, such as overseeing an agency's day-to-day operation. You seem to want to divorce the bolded sentence in Art. 1, Sec. 8 from the first part of the sentence, which you cannot do. "All other powers" is modified by, "Congress shall have to power to make all laws...." In other words, Congress power is limited to legislating. They do not have the power to run agencies.
Click to expand...
I don't want them to run it, I want Congress to provide oversight. Oversight ≠ run.

AdamT said:
Again, if they want to cancel a regulation they can do that by amending the law or passing a new law. They can't intervene directly in the promulgation of regulations.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with Congress making just laws. However, Congress can intervene directly with the regulations of the EPA, as the EPA is not under Executive control. Congress has the power to intervene, provide oversight or disband the EPA totally if they so choose.
 
LesGovt said:
And here I thought it was the Republicans and the Democrats who ran up the debt. Now, I'm finding out that the Tea Part[ies] did it. My, oh, my!
Click to expand...
The vast majority of Teabaggers are Conservatives and the Tea Party itself is little more than the Republican party reinvented after they ran the nation's economy into the ground. Once Obama became president, the Republican party was left in such a shambles, it was in no position to challange Obama; so Conservatives, like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, started up the Tea Party. Most of the teabaggers are either Republican or former Republicans who left the party in disgust.
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
I think you may be in denial. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but a business man. BTW, have you heard of the word lobbyist? Do you know what they do?
Click to expand...

I have heard of lobbyists. In fact, I worked in the legislature for a while and dealt with them regularly. I most definitely never saw or heard of any incident where anybody was offered an actual bribe or anything remotely like that. They watch those folks very, very, closely. You could easily take out a representative or senator if you even found evidence suggesting that anybody on their staff even might have taken a bribe. Like think of the huge scandal that it was when that one representative let some group that was putting on a charity event pay for his hotel room at the conference... It was like 2 years of hearings just over that... If somebody were caught taking an actual bribe it would not only destroy their career and/or the career of the candidate they work for if they're just a staffer, but it would do major damage to the entire party. Somebody would have to be pretty stupid to take a risk like that. Not saying it has never happened. I'm sure it has. But like maybe once every few years and most likely on a pretty minor thing and a low level staffer.

At the state level it appears to happen a bit more, but still not often. At the city and local level it's hard to really know what goes on since they're under a lot less scrutiny, but definitely is seems like more shady stuff happens down there. The federal level is pretty clean though. Campaign donations from shady sources is about the worst it gets, but of course the candidate doesn't get that money.
 
hazlnut said:
The TPs misunderstandings about basic economics prevented real solutions from being considered.

And just so you know, the TP is nothing more than a rebranding of the GOP so disenfranchised RW voters will come back into the fold.
Click to expand...

There would have been no debate about the debt ceiling if there had not been a monumental deficit and debt. None of the Tea Parties did that.

You can categorize the Tea Parties any way you wish, but it is obvious that you are biased against them. That's fine. We just need to remember that when you make your comments.
 
Surely bias against the Tea Party loons is a sign of intelligence and good judgement.

Unless simpletons who attend political rallies carrying automatic weapons and racist signs are your idea of evolved political debate.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The vast majority of Teabaggers are Conservatives and the Tea Party itself is little more than the Republican party reinvented after they ran the nation's economy into the ground. Once Obama became president, the Republican party was left in such a shambles, it was in no position to challange Obama; so Conservatives, like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, started up the Tea Party. Most of the teabaggers are either Republican or former Republicans who left the party in disgust.
Click to expand...

No problem. We can add yours to the list of biased people who won't look at anything objectively. Again, not a problem.
 
Wiggen said:
Surely bias against the Tea Party loons is a sign of intelligence and good judgement.

Unless simpletons who attend political rallies carrying automatic weapons and racist signs are your idea of evolved political debate.
Click to expand...

And now we can also add your name to the biased people who cannot be objective. Wow! All in a matter of a few moments. Amazing!
 
LesGovt said:
No problem. We can add yours to the list of biased people who won't look at anything objectively. Again, not a problem.
Click to expand...

That's a long list around here. Once you add the ones who turn every thread into "Obama this and Obama that."
 
rocket88 said:
That's a long list around here. Once you add the ones who turn every thread into "Obama this and Obama that."
Click to expand...

I see that you buy into the two wrongs make a right morality. Interesting.
 
teamosil said:
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with that. In my experience, less government means less free and less responsible people. The most essential functions of government in my view are to stop corporations from oppressing people and to force corporations to take responsibility for damage they cause. That means fighting for freedom and responsibility.
Click to expand...

It seems the enemy today is 'corporations" when in the past it was pollution, racism, sexism, global warming, overpopulation, and so on. The fact is that corporations are relatively easy to control if they aren't hand in glove with government, as we see today.

When government is involved in rescuing corporations, or including them in the government as they have done with GE, then we should really be very concerned. It is much easier to control a corporation than it s a corrupt and powerful government.
 
LesGovt said:
No problem. We can add yours to the list of biased people who won't look at anything objectively. Again, not a problem.
Click to expand...
Seems objective to me. Oh well, c'est la vie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom