Posted on 12/17/2013 4:40:37 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Just wait till the Feds mandate the use of that new Obamapaper in every bathroom in America.
Thank you for understanding my purpose in creating this thread. :)
Is it possible that govt mandated the use of antibi soaps? They certainly did in hospitals and other care facilities.
I’m all for you using whatever you want on your own person. You can make a great antibi soap with alcohol and other ingredients. But if you introduce a resistant strain of bacteria into the public, it becomes everyone’s concern.
If you smoke and it doesn’t affect me, I agree with you, smoke all you want. Same with sugar.
I get that people think they live in a bubble. We don’t. The compelling reason to continue to use antibi soaps in hospitals was that even though they were creating some problems, if - and that’s is IF - they were reducing a few infections, they’d continue using them.
If they created a situation where it dried skin and contributed to less hand washing, they’d mandate and police their staff more thoroughly.
But if it is creating resistant strains of bacteria, that IS a national interest. To have no national standard for these products would send us back to the dark ages.
Your point is based on what is called the non-delegation doctrine, but it is more a political point than a legal argument. With limited exceptions, the US Supreme Court has not prevented Congress from delegating rule making power to federal executive agencies and has held the practice to be constitutional in most instances.
Yes, they do, as long as they have at least 60% alcohol. But handwashing is always best, and sanitizers do NOT kill norovirus (the stomach bug) unless you go to Amazon and buy one made specifically made to do so.
My understanding is that one should only use the alcohol based sanitizers. Bacteria do not recognize alcohol as the “enemy” so to speak and do not develop resistance to it as they do with the “anti bacterial” agents.
I read an interesting article some time back about how the Japanese are nuts about using antibacterial agents everywhere in the home and have created very resistant bacteria.
I understand that the SCOTUS and legislative branch have empowered the bureaucracy to create law, but I maintain such actions go against Conditional intent.
The nondelegation doctrine had problems from the start because it proved hard to fashion justiciable principles for it.
LOL! Try again!
§ 1075....... The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
“I suppose smoking and sugar intake isn’t the healthiest stuff for your body....but frankly, I do not want a government bureaucracy telling me what to use.”
Fully implemented socialized medicine will likely shorten your life more so than tobacco. Shortened life spans in communist countries is a good indicator.
Thank you for that reference. I did look it up and had a fascinating read last night.
I don’t think that anything expresses the law of unintended consequences as well as this.
Especially after the Civil War, large commercial interests such as railroads, river boats, telegraph companies, oil companies, and manufacturers of all sorts, went to Congress for protection against the burdens of state laws and regulations that were often commercially unreasonable and amounted to little more than political shake downs. Federal courts approved these exercises of the federal commerce clause power.
The later New Deal era commerce clause cases that have inspired so much controversy were founded on those precedents. Granted, the federal New Deal programs sought to be implemented marked a dramatic expansion of federal power, but they did not represent a discontinuity with prior commerce clause case law.
Instead of trying to refight old constitutional issues that were long ago settled, the larger issue -- how to restrain the expansion of federal power -- is better addressed through the kind of constitutional amendments that Mark Levin has proposed.
Yes, well, better to try and follow the Constitution as written.
How constitutional generalities are to be applied in practice is not always clear.
“All legislative power” is not a generality, it is specific and inclusive when it gives such power to one branch.
Anyone, regardless of their position or station, who cannot see that was the intention of the founders, is willingly ignorant.
Your argument to the contrary ultimately comes down to the view that Congress may not to any degree whatever delegate quasi-legislative rule making power to an executive agency. In effect, you contend that it is not enough for Congress to provide for an executive agency that investigates and bans dangerous substances from the consumer marketplace. Instead, Congress must identify and ban such substances one by one through new and specific legislative enactments.
Such a view goes further than the non-delegation doctrines that some states apply as a check on their administrative agencies. Often, the eventual resolution at the state level is a special procedure by which the legislature reviews administrative rules and blocks or revises those that it dislikes. In practice, that rarely happens.
I am fully aware of the argument that says Congress used its legislative power to create federal agencies to effectively create law. Such an argument seems to be saying “Congress can allow other branches to make law”, and I contend that is unconstitutional.
Agencies are doing more than making “quasi-” legislation.
They are making legislation.
I am aware that reviews of agencies’ rules are rarely reversed. Exactly why giving them law-making power is wrong, aside from the primary fact that it is contrary to the founder’s intent of the Constitution.
On this and many other particulars, the evidence of the Founders’ intent is thin or nonexistent. I recall nothing in the Federalist Papers or Madison’s Notes or in other primary contemporary sources to support your absolute prohibition against any delegation of rule making power to executive agencies.
I agree you cannot recall the clear intent of the text of the document or the founders’ intent. An objective reading of their works would reveal their vision for this Republic does not include executive branch agencies creating law.
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.