Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College

Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/26/2014 6:23:07 PM)
Heard this on the radio the other day. I found it interesting. http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/constitution-minute-episode-11 quote: Transcript Constitution Minute #11: Legislative Vesting STUDENT: Hello, I’m Liz, a student at Hillsdale College. Here is Hillsdale President Larry Arnn on the Legislative Vesting Clause of the Constitution. DR. ARNN: Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” To the Founders, legislative power was the power to make laws that applies to all alike. That are clear and easy to understand. The Constitution says all Legislative powers and that means Congress cannot rightfully delegate these powers to some other body. Today our laws are thousands of pages long and sometimes rules are tens of thousands and no one can read them. Congress has abdicated its legislative power to unelected bureaucrats in countless executive agencies. This is a violation of Article I Section 1 of the Constitution. STUDENT: This Constitution Minute was brought to you by Hillsdale College. To join the national conversation on the Constitution, go to ConstitutionMinute.com. I agree that the US Constitution puts the onus for creation of legislation onto Congress. However, I'm not so sure that means Congress can't "rightfully delegate" those powers to some other body. I think Congress can delegate legislative power to another body, provided Congress is in control of that body. For example, if President Obama signs an EO creating a committee to determine the best way forward in cutting CO2 emissions from fermenting yeast, and appoints everyone on that committee, that committee shouldn't have any legislative power to actually create laws that affect ordinary citizens. If Congress creates that committee and has control over who is on that committee, they can delegate legislative authority to that committee. It would be considered an off-shoot of Congress itself. And, since Congress created it and populated it, it's still controlled by Congress, and legislating by proxy. IMO, there has to be clear control by Congress for a body to be granted authority to create legislation. It shouldn't be doled out willy-nilly. That only invites abuse, corruption, and lack of control.

thompsonx -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/26/2014 6:55:37 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Heard this on the radio the other day. I found it interesting. http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/constitution-minute-episode-11 quote: Transcript Constitution Minute #11: Legislative Vesting STUDENT: Hello, I’m Liz, a student at Hillsdale College. Here is Hillsdale President Larry Arnn on the Legislative Vesting Clause of the Constitution. DR. ARNN: Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” To the Founders, legislative power was the power to make laws that applies to all alike. That are clear and easy to understand. The Constitution says all Legislative powers and that means Congress cannot rightfully delegate these powers to some other body. Today our laws are thousands of pages long and sometimes rules are tens of thousands and no one can read them. Congress has abdicated its legislative power to unelected bureaucrats in countless executive agencies. This is a violation of Article I Section 1 of the Constitution. STUDENT: This Constitution Minute was brought to you by Hillsdale College. To join the national conversation on the Constitution, go to ConstitutionMinute.com. I agree that the US Constitution puts the onus for creation of legislation onto Congress. However, I'm not so sure that means Congress can't "rightfully delegate" those powers to some other body. I think Congress can delegate legislative power to another body, provided Congress is in control of that body. For example, if President Obama signs an EO creating a committee to determine the best way forward in cutting CO2 emissions from fermenting yeast, and appoints everyone on that committee, that committee shouldn't have any legislative power to actually create laws that affect ordinary citizens. If Congress creates that committee and has control over who is on that committee, they can delegate legislative authority to that committee. It would be considered an off-shoot of Congress itself. And, since Congress created it and populated it, it's still controlled by Congress, and legislating by proxy. IMO, there has to be clear control by Congress for a body to be granted authority to create legislation. It shouldn't be doled out willy-nilly. That only invites abuse, corruption, and lack of control. Have you always been this stupid or is it a work in progrss?

MrRodgers -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/26/2014 7:34:40 PM)
Legislation would still need to be voted on by the whole HOR and the senate and of course signed or vetoed by the pres. and overridden or not.

Gauge -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/26/2014 7:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree that the US Constitution puts the onus for creation of legislation onto Congress. However, I'm not so sure that means Congress can't "rightfully delegate" those powers to some other body. I think Congress can delegate legislative power to another body, provided Congress is in control of that body. For example, if President Obama signs an EO creating a committee to determine the best way forward in cutting CO2 emissions from fermenting yeast, and appoints everyone on that committee, that committee shouldn't have any legislative power to actually create laws that affect ordinary citizens. If Congress creates that committee and has control over who is on that committee, they can delegate legislative authority to that committee. It would be considered an off-shoot of Congress itself. And, since Congress created it and populated it, it's still controlled by Congress, and legislating by proxy. IMO, there has to be clear control by Congress for a body to be granted authority to create legislation. It shouldn't be doled out willy-nilly. That only invites abuse, corruption, and lack of control. In an ideal world, this could happen. However, Congress is as corrupt as they come and they pander to special interests and not the people. Giving power completely to Congress would negate the necessity for an Executive branch of government. Or was that your point? No snark intended, just a genuine question.

thompsonx -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/26/2014 8:15:55 PM)
ORIGINAL: Gauge In an ideal world, this could happen. However, Congress is as corrupt as they come and they pander to special interests and not the people. Giving power completely to Congress would negate the necessity for an Executive branch of government. Or was that your point? No snark intended, just a genuine question. This morons agenda is that congress should make every rule that there is and no bureau could issue rules and regulations. Thus making it easy for korporate amerika to do what they wish without worrying about those pesky laws. How long do you think it would take congress to pass every traffic law, every safety regulation,etc. thus no regulation.Just think how kewel it would be if we did not have to put railings on staris and safety glass in automobiles? Think how much money korporate amerika could make if there were no regulations controlling them?

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/27/2014 6:40:00 AM)
You need only look as far as the US treasury for a delegation of legislative (within limits) powers. Executive orders may not make new law, they can only describe the execution of policies in accordance with those laws, they cannot defeat those laws.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/27/2014 1:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree that the US Constitution puts the onus for creation of legislation onto Congress. However, I'm not so sure that means Congress can't "rightfully delegate" those powers to some other body. I think Congress can delegate legislative power to another body, provided Congress is in control of that body. For example, if President Obama signs an EO creating a committee to determine the best way forward in cutting CO2 emissions from fermenting yeast, and appoints everyone on that committee, that committee shouldn't have any legislative power to actually create laws that affect ordinary citizens. If Congress creates that committee and has control over who is on that committee, they can delegate legislative authority to that committee. It would be considered an off-shoot of Congress itself. And, since Congress created it and populated it, it's still controlled by Congress, and legislating by proxy. IMO, there has to be clear control by Congress for a body to be granted authority to create legislation. It shouldn't be doled out willy-nilly. That only invites abuse, corruption, and lack of control. In an ideal world, this could happen. However, Congress is as corrupt as they come and they pander to special interests and not the people. Giving power completely to Congress would negate the necessity for an Executive branch of government. Or was that your point? No snark intended, just a genuine question. The US Constitution gave the power to create legislation to Congress. That wasn't the point, though. The point was more along the lines of Congress not being Constitutionally allowed to delegate legislative authority to other bodies. An example would be authorizing the EPA to write legislation without it having to go through Congress. Or, for Congress to pass a broadly worded law, but the details get determined by unelected bureaucrats. Congress is quite corrupt. Are unelected bureaucrats less corrupt? Would they not be at risk of the same corruption if they were to wield authority to write the legislation? This "minute" has nothing to do with getting rid of any branch of government. Clearly, the Constitution called for three branches, and this in no way would change that.

dcnovice -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/27/2014 3:08:19 PM)
FR This may interest you, DS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_veto_in_the_United_States

DesideriScuri -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/27/2014 3:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR This may interest you, DS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_veto_in_the_United_States That was interesting, dc, thanks! But, the INS v. Chadha case cited as the reasoning why the legislative veto is not Constitutional doesn't necessarily apply to what I was saying. The Chadha case didn't change any law, or create any law. What it did was demonstrate that the creation of legislation and the execution of said legislation are two different things, and the authorities of those two different things belong to two different branches of the Federal Government. In Chadha, the HoR was attempting to veto an execution decision regarding immigration law. I don't think one chamber of Congress should hold veto power, but if both chambers agree? Sure, but only over legislation, and not execution of that legislation. This is another reason why I think the House GOP is nothing more than a yippy dog with their lawsuit threat regarding Obama's changing of Obamacare's applications. The Legislature passed the legislation. The Executive branch is executing it. If it's prudent for the Executive branch to postpone the onset of a rule, isn't that "faithful execution" of the laws of the US?

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/27/2014 3:50:22 PM)
It is, particularly in light of Arizona et al. V United States: 1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center,which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock.

Sanity -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/28/2014 8:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Executive branch is executing it. If it's prudent for the Executive branch to postpone the onset of a rule, isn't that "faithful execution" of the laws of the US? No, its faithfully delaying the implementation of the LAW purely for political gain The new laws were deemed damaging to the Dems in the coming elections so the political-hack-in-chief rewrote the law as if he were congress

DesideriScuri -> RE: Constitutional Minute #11 from Hillsdale College (8/29/2014 2:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Executive branch is executing it. If it's prudent for the Executive branch to postpone the onset of a rule, isn't that "faithful execution" of the laws of the US? No, its faithfully delaying the implementation of the LAW purely for political gain The new laws were deemed damaging to the Dems in the coming elections so the political-hack-in-chief rewrote the law as if he were congress If it's purely for political gain, then, imo, it's not truly prudent.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1083984