Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Make Regulations Subject To Approval By Congress
ConservativeAlerts.Com ^ | Conservative Alerts

Posted on 06/28/2003 11:22:07 AM PDT by webber

Make Regulations Subject to Approval By Congress

ISSUE:Tired of faceless & heartless bureaucrats enacting "regulations" that were never approved by Congress? So is at least one Congressman.

Calling it the "Congressional Responsibility Act," Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) is promoting his legislation (H.R. 110) to require that all prospective federal regulations be subject to congressional approval before they become effective.

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.

This bill would accomplish several things. 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.

Since the New Deal, however, Congress and the White House have routinely passed statutes that transfer the power to make law to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

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.

ACTION ITEM: This bill would end the practice whereby Congress delegates its responsibility for making laws to unelected, unaccountable officials of the executive branch and requires that regulations proposed by agencies of the executive branch be affirmatively enacted by Congress before they become effective. If we can get it passed, it would result in a more democratic and accountable Congress and protect the public from regulations for which elected, accountable officials are unwilling to take responsibility.

Let's get our Representatives off their duffs and supporting this bill. Go to our site below to send your Congressman a FREE message, asking him or her to support H.R. 110, the "Congressional Responsibility Act":

NOTE: Be sure to forward this e-mail to everyone you know that wants to help some measure over constitutional Congressional responsibility over the rules issued by faceless bureaucrats.

Thank you!


ConservativeAlerts.Com


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
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.
1 posted on 06/28/2003 11:22:07 AM PDT by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: webber
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.

2 posted on 06/28/2003 12:11:19 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
"Congressional Responsibility Act"

Its doom is in its name.

3 posted on 06/28/2003 12:14:48 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
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.
4 posted on 06/28/2003 12:17:21 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.

5 posted on 06/28/2003 12:21:28 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: webber
I oppose this.

It also stops the possibility of good regulations.
6 posted on 06/28/2003 12:22:50 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
"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.

7 posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:41 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
Well, let's just switch to parliamentary government and be done with it. Who needs all the gridlock anyway?
8 posted on 06/28/2003 3:56:13 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Hence, regulatory volume is what will have to give way

No, it won't.

9 posted on 06/28/2003 3:57:52 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Good regulations, eh?

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

10 posted on 06/28/2003 4:03:40 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.
11 posted on 06/28/2003 4:16:12 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Then that's Congress' problem.

Then it's ours.

12 posted on 06/28/2003 4:17:35 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
How so? Why should we care if Congressmen have no free time on their hands? That's between them and their families.
13 posted on 06/28/2003 4:24:16 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: inquest
That's between them and their families.

Their constituents be damned, heh?

14 posted on 06/28/2003 4:32:24 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Some of the things Dubya has done that is good is through executive orders and regulations of departments.
15 posted on 06/28/2003 5:15:26 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.
16 posted on 06/28/2003 5:20:28 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: inquest
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.

17 posted on 06/28/2003 5:43:54 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
If our congressman considers communicating with his constituents to be ministerial minutiae, his constituents might have other ideas in mind for him.
18 posted on 06/28/2003 6:01:51 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: inquest
communicating with his constituents to be ministerial minutiae

Backwards. Regulatory functions are ministerial.

19 posted on 06/28/2003 6:19:52 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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.
20 posted on 06/28/2003 6:37:44 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson