Executive Branch could lose much of its unconstitutional power

Coach is Right ^ | 6/21/15 | Doug Book

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

More like 4th and 5th.

[savedbygrace]

LOL!

[Fiddlstix]

.....Many came into being during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt, the one president more arrogant and power hungry than Barack Obama......

True That!
We can thank FDR for ALL of our present day 0bama dictatorship decrees.
0bama just following in FDR footsteps.
FDR hated the constitution too and said so on occasion.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Oldpuppymax. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

The subject of this thread is another 17th Amendment (17A) related issue imo. More on 17A shortly.

"Administrative Law “…allows for the creation of public regulatory agencies and contains all of the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern them."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding so-called “administrative law,” corrupt presidents ignore that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats like those running the EPA and SEC. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether presidents like it or not.

Next, note that the Founding States had also given Congress the power to impeach and remove corrupt presidents from office. So why didn’t Congress remove Constitution-ignoring FDR from office when he started making policies which wrongly usurped Congress’s unique legislative powers?

The problem is the 17th Amendment imo. More specifically, the Founding States had not only established the federal Senate, but had given the power to vote for senators uniquely to state lawmakers. The idea was that senators were expected to protect their states by not only killing bills which stole 10th Amendment protected state powers, but also remove from office corrupt, Constitution-ignoring presidents who had been impeached by the House.

But state lawmakers later caved in to pressure from misguided, low-information voters to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, state lawmakers foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress by doing so.

Time has shown that the problem with the 17th Amendment is the following. After media-indoctrinated voters exercise their 17A power to vote for their favorite senators, they go home and watch football, clueless to the following major constitutional problem. Voters don’t understand that their corrupt senators are working in cahoots with the corrupt House to allow Congress and the POTUS to do things that the states had never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to do.

In fact, regardless that Obama guard dog Fx News wants everybody to think that the Oval Office is the most power office in the land, the corrupt Senate is actually the most unconstitutionally powerful office in the land imo.

After all, not only does the Senate help the House to pass unconstitutional bills, bills which Congress cannot justify under its Article I, Section 8-limited powers, but also consider the following. When corrupt presidents steal legislative branch powers, corrupt senators just sit on their hands and allow such presidents do do their dirty work for them instead of doing their jobs to work with the House to remove bad-apple presidents from office.

And the icing on the Senate’s cake is to approve justices who then declare the unconstitutional laws made by Congress and signed by the president to be constitutional.

What a racket!

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and Constitution-ignoring senators, presidents and justices along with it.

[Oldpuppymax]

Here is a link to the Judge’s ruling in Hill v SEC:

http://assets.law360news.com/0665000/665245/2015-06-08%20-%20Dkt%2028%20-%20ORDER%20granting%20in%20part%20motion%20for%20TRO%20%281%29.PDF

[Jacquerie]

The main consequence is that the people are no longer represented by it (Congress), which means we haven't had free republican government since the beginning of this practice.

So the question remains, "How to restore the republic?"

[crosdaddy]

Guns,lots and lots of guns

[lurk]

The irony of this is that the rogue agencies are being reined in by the courts, which are out of control themselves.

[Excellence]

Thanks a bunch.

[publius911]

Bookmark

[Mack the knife]

The rhetoric in the article above and in the comments is vastly overblown. I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at Holiday Inn last night and read the opinion.

There were three parts to this case: in one part, the defendant said ... “hey, I ought to get a jury trial.” The judge’s opinion said ... nope, civil jury trials are not the only way to judge something ... Congress can create “public rights”, pass civil laws, and assign administrative agencies to be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. [bet you didn’t learn that in high school civics or study of the constitution, did you? ] Thus the IRS, EPA, SEC, ... will keep rolling along, unaffected by this decision.

Another part said ... “hey, the Dodd-Frank law and the SEC set up a squirrelly appointment process for the administrative judge, and the guy that will be my judge was not appointed by a department head, so it violates the appointments clause of the constitution, and thus is unconstitutional.” Judge agreed. So the guy gets his injunction. But ... This opinion applies only to the SEC provisions of the Dodd-Frank law, not other administrative agencies.

Whoopie-do. This will be rectified by a quick change in the law to have a Cabinet member do the appointing of the administrative law judges. Just a bump in the road.

[umgud]

Thanks, that’s a good take on it.