Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar (Read 1488 times)
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #10 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 10:54am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 10:52am:
Maybe the starter is a troll, but there is content here.


OK - point for you. But it's the smaller part of the problem.


There are agencies in the legislative AND executive branches.  Consider (FCC, FDA, Social Security) vs  EPA or Dept.of.Agriculture for example.   AFAIK the only part of the Constitution that Congress violates in delegating power to agencies is the enumerated powers, and they do that all the time and the SCOTUS supports it.   THe lawfulness of the EPA has been in doubt since it was crated under Eisenhower.

But I believe the mechanism for a legislative agency is all wrong in principle, but does not violate the constitution.  Congress validly passes a law saying that it delegates power to regulate interstate commerce (an enumerated power) to the ICC, and that it's regulations have the force of law.  Then the unelected ICC regulators write whatever regulations they please - and the congress has oversight.  That seems to not violate the constitution at all.  (A LOT of what the Congress does violates the enumerated powers limitation, but that's a different issue than delegation to an agency).

At least in the case of the ICC or the FCC you can pester your representatives and have a voice.   That's not true of the executive EPA - you have noo representation in control of EPA.


Not so sure it's "much bolder".   It's incremental in one direction and has been going on at least since the Andrew Jackson admin.  The idea that it's OK for government to constantly surveille all citizen via metadata w/o warrant, or to kill suspected US citizens overseas, or that you lose all expectations of privacy when you exercise your right to assemble via an air travel is shocking in any time, but in another decade it will seem "normal", and the few non-sheep will cease to look-up.   I find it shocking that anyone think social-security is a lawful function of our federal government - but almost no one else is concerned.


And what King Obama is implementing from the WhiteHouse.   Gotta say I enjoy hearing the biased rhetoric from this clown.   'If Reps don't like Obamacare, they should propose their own plan for socialistic heathcare and redistributionism' - type arguments are indeed bold lies posing as challenges.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nate
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 98
Joined: Mar 12th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #11 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 6:24pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 7:00am:
By the definition of internet forum troll, Shiva is a troll.
You think she's here to advance the cause of liberty? Obviously not.
Maybe to convert libertarians to 'progressive' thinking? Perhaps.
What I see is constant attempts to derail any actual libertarian discussion.


If you use "non libertarian on a libertarian forum" as the definition of a troll, sure. But I honestly thought that rule was really dumb when I joined so maybe I'm more willing to accept non-libertarians. Honestly, I'd love to get some Communists, centrists, and maybe some left anarchists in here. Obviously, libertarians are going to be more prominent on a forum entitled "Libertarian's Forum."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #12 - Apr 14th, 2014 at 7:15am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 10:52am:
But I believe the mechanism for a legislative agency is all wrong in principle, but does not violate the constitution.  Congress validly passes a law saying that it delegates power to regulate interstate commerce (an enumerated power) to the ICC, and that it's regulations have the force of law.  Then the unelected ICC regulators write whatever regulations they please - and the congress has oversight.  That seems to not violate the constitution at all.  (A LOT of what the Congress does violates the enumerated powers limitation, but that's a different issue than delegation to an agency).









All legislative powers are vested in Congress.
If they can 'lawfully' delegate those powers, they can 'lawfully' delegate them to anyone, not just to Executive  branch bureaucrats.
Why not to private companies? Or some favored individual?

The limitation on the delegation of legislative power is that only Congress is authorized to have legislative power, and that Congress cannot alter the Constitution by legislation, but only by the means provided in Article V.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #13 - Apr 14th, 2014 at 11:59am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 4:16pm:
That's right, you're starting up a new company. How's it going? Selling any product or service yet? Is the gross on line with your projections?


Still in the product development phase but we'll have our products on the market soon. You'll choke on our employee benefits package.

Starting wage for semi-skilled labor that will require on the job training of $20/hr (basically our minimum starting wage for all employees)
Group health insurace for employees (even though we'll be under the "Obamacare" requirements)
Profit sharing where 10% of profits will be distributed to the employees.
A pension plan vested after 10-years of service.
A 401K retirement plan with employer contributions.
A five-year employee recognition award worth roughly $15,000 to $20,000.

We can do all of this for a manufacturing labor charge of $100/hr which is less than the current $140/hr manufacturing labor charge in the area.

Back to the subject.

The president is obligated to do what is necessary to implement the laws passed by Congress. If problems arise that the Congress does not resolve a problem then the president has the discretionary authority to do what is necessary to try and implement the law as written to the best of his ability.

For example there were problems with the individual mandate and there remain serious problems with the employer mandate under the ACA. Congress has sent no legislation to the president's desk to address these problems so the president must take actions, such as delaying the penalities under the employer mandate, to address the problems.

That is not unconstitutional and it's been done by every president I'm aware of in US history.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #14 - Apr 14th, 2014 at 4:17pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 14th, 2014 at 11:59am:
The president is obligated to do what is necessary to implement the laws passed by Congress. If problems arise that the Congress does not resolve a problem then the president has the discretionary authority to do what is necessary to try and implement the law as written to the best of his ability.

For example there were problems with the individual mandate and there remain serious problems with the employer mandate under the ACA. Congress has sent no legislation to the president's desk to address these problems so the president must take actions, such as delaying the penalities under the employer mandate, to address the problems.

That is not unconstitutional and it's been done by every president I'm aware of in US history.


If a President sees a problem with a law sent to him by Congress, he can veto it.
If a President doesn't like a law passed by some previous Congress, he can send his Attorney General, or go himself, to the Supreme Court. Ideally, the American people should be informed of the questions about the law, and the Constitutional issues it might involve.
The President has no other discretion when it comes to laws. He is required, by the people, through the Constitution, to faithfully execute what has been passed into law.

I thought the ACA was Obama's signature mark on the history of U.S. Presidents.... you mean he signed it into law without reading it? He trusted Pelosi and Reid?

Has he ever gotten around to reading it? I guess not, since if he would have, he would have been smart enough to see that it was going to have lots of serious problems.
Shouldn't Sebelius have told him? Or didn't she know either?

That's right, I forgot, nobody in this administration knows anything, or they can't remember, or they plead the 5th.

You're right Shiva, we need more of this, these people should have more power.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #15 - Apr 15th, 2014 at 3:12pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 7:00am:
By the definition of internet forum troll, Shiva is a troll.
You think she's here to advance the cause of liberty? Obviously not.
Maybe to convert libertarians to 'progressive' thinking? Perhaps.
What I see is constant attempts to derail any actual libertarian discussion.


I'm a guy not a woman which is the beginning of how wrong you are.

I absolutely support the Liberty of the Person and uncategorically oppose violations of the Right of Liberty. I oppose our immigration laws that deny the Right of Liberty of the person to relocate from one place to another place for peaceful purposes.

I support the Right of Liberty of a Person related to employment where they are not forced by economic coercion into accepting employment for less than it costs them to survive.

I support the Right of Liberty of the Person to be judged based upon their merits and not discriminated against by invidious stereotyping and prejudice.

I do believe that our government has a responsibility to mitigate the effects of the violation of the Inalienable Right of Liberty that are beyond it's ability to prevent.

I'm all about the Inalienable Right of Liberty and the protections of it and the mitigating of the effects of violations of our Inalienable Right of Liberty. Where I differ from many others is that I identify violations of our Inalienable Right of Liberty and believe our government has a requirement to address those violations by preventing them if it can and by mitigating the effects of the violations if it can't prevent them.

As for this thread there is a simple foundation for it. First of all the president has an obligation to address problems with the implentation of the law that are created by Congress. If Congress doesn't address the problems it creates then the president has to address those problems by executive order. The problems cannot just be ignored.

Next is that the reason that "Obamacare" exists is because people are forced to accept employment that does not provide adequate compensation in either wage or benefits necessary for them to receive the health care they need. If every company in the US, for example, provided group health insurance for their employees then no working person would require government intervention in the health care insurance industry. That is a fact.

Obamacare, as much as I object to how it addresses a problem created by private enterprise and the free market, is merely government mitigating a violation of the Right of Liberty of a person that is required by market forces (coercion) to accept employment that doesn't provide health insurance or the income required for the person to purchase private insurance.

Sorry, but I refuse to embrace the violations of the Right of Liberty of the Person by unscrupulous employers that under-pay for the labor of the person forcing a person to "operate at a loss" so the employer can "profit" by exploitation. Employment needs to be a "win-win" situation where both the enterprise and the individual "profit" from a mutually beneficial relationship. If that mutually beneficial relationship doesn't exist because of coercion on either side the the Right of Liberty is being violated.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #16 - Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:23pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 3:12pm:
As for this thread there is a simple foundation for it. First of all the president has an obligation to address problems with the implentation of the law that are created by Congress. If Congress doesn't address the problems it creates then the president has to address those problems by executive order. The problems cannot just be ignored.



Executive orders are not laws.
They are orders from the Chief Executive to his employees in the executive branch of government.
Exactly like orders from a CEO in the private sector, they do not reach outside the company, they simply have no authority there.

Obama should be issuing lots of executive orders, since his branch of the government looks to be in total disarray. But then , he doesn't seem to have a clue whats going on there, so maybe he shouldn't be issuing any orders, especially secret ones.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy