New Constitutional Amendment: Bills Before Congress; Other Amendments

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Coupla things. First, Every regulation that an executive agency passes is supposed to be pursuant to existing legislation, neither the President nor any of his Cabinet or Agency heads can legally write their own laws. The Courts can strike down any regulation that they believe to be unauthorized by Congress. And the Congress themselves can amend any legislation or write new legislation that precludes the Executive branch from creating rules and regs that it doesn't approve of. And finally, any regulation written or amended by an Executive Agency can be changed by the next President, it ain't permanent except where existing legislation says it is.

That is the way it is supposed to be; reality is somewhat different however, as Presidents have for a long time tried to stretch the limits of their power to implement their policies, and Congress in many cases has allowed them to do so. So, it's up to the Judicial branch to make sure the Executive doesn't go too far. In actuality many presidents have gone too far IMHO, with the ramifications that the Executive Branch has become a little too powerful and the Legislative Branch has allowed itself to be too weak. What we have here is too much unaccountability and not enough responsibility and plain old gumption to do your effing job instead of ceding over your authority to the president when he/she is in your party. And frankly it's on us to vote the bastards out if they aren't doing the job we elected them to do, but we're not doing that. Which I think is a damn good reason to have a 3rd major party out there as an alternative to the Rs and Ds. Maybe not yet at the national (presidential) level, although eventually I'd like to see more than 2 people running for president who actually could be elected.

Excellent post, and a great description of how things are supposed to work, and how they actually work.

I am divided on the third party idea. In every country where there are more than two major parties, the smaller major (oxymoron!) parties end up with way more leverage than they demograghically represent.

I'd rather see a new party entirely supplant one of the existing parties. This has happened a few times before in America, and it is long overdue to happen again.

We all know how this game works. It destroys the separation of powers.

Making regulations is not executing the laws. It's legislating. If the regulatory scheme is too burdensome on Congress, maybe that's where we should give the power back to the states, as was intended by the 9th and 10th Amendments???

The left hates the idea because a communist scheme requires a strong centralized government to control the masses. The left hates giving power to the people. The left wants New York and California to control Alaska and Hawaii.

The left also wants to push through 3000 pages worth of reach-around payoffs for political favors, and to do so faster than anyone has an opportunity to review it. See ACA.

If you are against a limit on bill size and scope, you are for ramming self-serving, pork-laden, bullshit legislation that works only in favor of the ruling class, at the expense of the people.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If you're a lawyer as you claim, you've got a fool for a client!

You fucked that up. It's "if you represent yourself, you have a fool for a client." the idea being that even a lawyer should not represent himself or herself. The emotional involvement clouds judgment and prevents recognition of opportunities or proper outcome evaluation.

You Randian Radicals can't get it through your skulls that you'll never herd the cats and other assorted contraries and get them to walk in lock step with your brand of totalitarianism. Pushing toward known unworkable schemes to force the masses to follow is just plain STUPID or a sign of true intent!!

We are pushing AGAINST totalitarianism. It's only unworkable if citizens take no personal responsibility. Maybe some people shouldn't be citizens. They can't handle it.

It's only unworkable if citizens take no personal responsibility. Maybe some people shouldn't be citizens. They can't handle it. We are pushing AGAINST totalitarianism.

You fucked that up. It's "if you represent yourself, you have a fool for a client." the idea being that even a lawyer should not represent himself or herself. The emotional involvement clouds judgment and prevents recognition of opportunities or proper outcome evaluation.

Your false premise has been noted and discarded as the schoolyard taunt it mimics. Obviously, my entendre was an offense to your 1) General capability to find a place to anchor your comprehension, or 2) Are you claiming you are NOT a lawyer now, or 3) Were not representing your own thoughts in your OP, but another's, or 4) Just not thinking at all when you started the OP? BTW, your attempt to write a proposed amendment was laughingly amateurish at best.

We are pushing AGAINST totalitarianism. It's only unworkable if citizens take no personal responsibility. Maybe some people shouldn't be citizens. They can't handle it.

The Hell you are! Your type of right wing extremists are merely visioning a quasi stratified feudal system with the ruler class determining all rights, the center (merchant) class with limited rights if deemed worthy and the serf and peasant class with next to no rights. And don't pretend you didn't write your words quoted directly above.

How the fuck can you Randian's claim to be anti-totalitarian then desire to stratify society based on the subjective criteria of who is worthy of your arbitrary "considerations" of others determining the have's and have not's. You just threw all Constitutional first principles out the fucking window you bloody cur! Now piss off you fucking poser!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Democratic Party is a threat to our democracy because of their vast corruption and lawlessness.
Obama was attempting to create a dictatorship with his "pen and phone" illegal legislation.
Obama abused his power just like a third world despot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your false premise has been noted and discarded as the schoolyard taunt it mimics. Obviously, my entendre was an offense to your 1) General capability to find a place to anchor your comprehension, or 2) Are you claiming you are NOT a lawyer now, or 3) Were not representing your own thoughts in your OP, but another's, or 4) Just not thinking at all when you started the OP?

Oh, Jesus...FUCK YOU. What the FUCK is that? Is that some lame attempt to make some sort of "intellectual" insult, you useless wannabe?

BTW, your attempt to write a proposed amendment was laughingly amateurish at best.

Give it try yourself, Cardozo.

The Hell you are! Your type of right wing extremists are merely visioning a quasi stratified feudal system with the ruler class determining all rights, the center (merchant) class with limited rights if deemed worthy and the serf and peasant class with next to no rights. And don't pretend you didn't write your words quoted directly above.

Nice faux-intellectual rant. I doubt you even know what that means, but assuming you did, you could have saved some time and just typed: "You want limited government and separation of powers. You're mean."

How the fuck can you Randian's claim to be anti-totalitarian then desire to stratify society based on the subjective criteria of who is worthy of your arbitrary "considerations" of others determining the have's and have not's. You just threw all Constitutional first principles out the fucking window you bloody cur! Now piss off you fucking poser!

Stratify society based on subjective criteria? Let me de-snootify that shit for you. You mean, I want the best and smartest to be the most successful? I want to pick winners and losers based on....[dramatic music]....merit??? The horror!!!

Now, please explain how I threw all Constitutional-first principles out the window. I'll wait.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your false premise has been noted and discarded as the schoolyard taunt it mimics. Obviously, my entendre was an offense to your 1) General capability to find a place to anchor your comprehension, or 2) Are you claiming you are NOT a lawyer now, or 3) Were not representing your own thoughts in your OP, but another's, or 4) Just not thinking at all when you started the OP?

Oh, Jesus...FUCK YOU. What the FUCK is that? Is that some lame attempt to make some sort of "intellectual" insult, you useless wannabe?

BTW, your attempt to write a proposed amendment was laughingly amateurish at best.

Give it try yourself, Cardozo.

The Hell you are! Your type of right wing extremists are merely visioning a quasi stratified feudal system with the ruler class determining all rights, the center (merchant) class with limited rights if deemed worthy and the serf and peasant class with next to no rights. And don't pretend you didn't write your words quoted directly above.

Nice faux-intellectual rant. I doubt you even know what that means, but assuming you did, you could have saved some time and just typed: "You want limited government and separation of powers. You're mean."

How the fuck can you Randian's claim to be anti-totalitarian then desire to stratify society based on the subjective criteria of who is worthy of your arbitrary "considerations" of others determining the have's and have not's. You just threw all Constitutional first principles out the fucking window you bloody cur! Now piss off you fucking poser!

Stratify society based on subjective criteria? Let me de-snootify that shit for you. You mean, I want the best and smartest to be the most successful? I want to pick winners and losers based on....[dramatic music]....merit??? The horror!!!

Now, please explain how I threw all Constitutional-first principles out the window. I'll wait.

It appears I got everything right based on your reaction and ad hominem response.

I want to pick winners and losers based on....[dramatic music]....merit???

There is your own admission of your political bent and grandiose future vision. You wish to be the one of the upper strata and not one of equals of the many with equal status under the law. That was exactly what I was conveying in my post to which your reacted like an angry child with that rant. You claimed to be an educated person, but you can't even keep up with your own obfuscations and lies.

Now go piss up a rope kid 'cause I'm done feeding the troll! Have fun with the last word, little one.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Each federal regulation shall be approved by vote of the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President as legislation. No bill or federal regulation, or any portion thereof, presented to or approved by the House or Senate may be signed by the President and become law except that every portion (no longer than 10 pages) of such bill or federal regulation shall require a separate vote by both the House and Senate, and require the separate signature of the President, as well as a final vote on the bill or federal regulation as a whole, in the House and Senate, and signed by the President. If all portions of a bill or federal regulation are not approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President, the whole of the bill is null and void, requiring renewed approval of each portion by the House and Senate, and signature of the President.

For purposes of this amendment, a "page" of a bill or federal regulation means a sheet of paper measuring no larger than 8.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, containing type-written text in double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins on all sides.


Would you approve this amendment?

Sure, try that with IRS, VA or DOT regulations. Congress could NEVER process that amount of minutia. Have you ever glanced at the JUST the CFR or the Federal Register? UN-FUCKING-WORKABLE!

From which libertarian website did you dredge this idiocy up?

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Each federal regulation shall be approved by vote of the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President as legislation. No bill or federal regulation, or any portion thereof, presented to or approved by the House or Senate may be signed by the President and become law except that every portion (no longer than 10 pages) of such bill or federal regulation shall require a separate vote by both the House and Senate, and require the separate signature of the President, as well as a final vote on the bill or federal regulation as a whole, in the House and Senate, and signed by the President. If all portions of a bill or federal regulation are not approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President, the whole of the bill is null and void, requiring renewed approval of each portion by the House and Senate, and signature of the President.

For purposes of this amendment, a "page" of a bill or federal regulation means a sheet of paper measuring no larger than 8.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, containing type-written text in double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins on all sides.


Would you approve this amendment?

Sure, try that with IRS, VA or DOT regulations. Congress could NEVER process that amount of minutia. Have you ever glanced at the JUST the CFR or the Federal Register? UN-FUCKING-WORKABLE!

From which libertarian website did you dredge this idiocy up?

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

Tell that to the person who crafted the OP and his proposed and ill informed Constitutional amendment. You did read the OP, right?

We agree that if a law is unworkable to the extent that it is burdensome to an absurd extreme, it should not become law. The author of the OP though has admitted that the purpose of his Constitutional amendment proposal was just that to the nth degree; to tie up Congress to the extent of contravening and halting their proper legislative duties to bring the House and Senate to a halt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is your own admission of your political bent and grandiose future vision. You wish to be the one of the upper strata and not one of equals of the many with equal status under the law. That was exactly what I was conveying in my post to which your reacted like an angry child with that rant. You claimed to be an educated person, but you can't even keep up with your own obfuscations and lies.

Now go piss up a rope kid 'cause I'm done feeding the troll! Have fun with the last word, little one.

What a pussy.

Equal opportunity, not guaranteed equal results. Why is that concept so hard for someone like you, who acts like you are so fucking smart?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We agree that if a law is unworkable to the extent that it is burdensome to an absurd extreme, it should not become law. The author of the OP though has admitted that the purpose of his Constitutional amendment proposal was just that to the nth degree; to tie up Congress to the extent of contravening and halting their proper legislative duties to bring the House and Senate to a halt.

WRONG.

The purpose is to prevent another 3000 page ACA-type political payday that your beloved asswipes enacted and dear leader dumbo signed WITHOUT FUCKIN READING THE GODDAMN THING!!! It's to prevent assclowns from tying up good legislation with bullshit to extort/bribe votes. It is to maintain separation of powers.

An added benefit is the prevention of fast-moving, whimsical change or "fundamental transformation" without serious consideration, debate, and public voice in response to proposals. The harder it is to fuck us over behind closed doors, the less likely it is to happen.

 

[bripat9643]

Each federal regulation shall be approved by vote of the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President as legislation. No bill or federal regulation, or any portion thereof, presented to or approved by the House or Senate may be signed by the President and become law except that every portion (no longer than 10 pages) of such bill or federal regulation shall require a separate vote by both the House and Senate, and require the separate signature of the President, as well as a final vote on the bill or federal regulation as a whole, in the House and Senate, and signed by the President. If all portions of a bill or federal regulation are not approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President, the whole of the bill is null and void, requiring renewed approval of each portion by the House and Senate, and signature of the President.

For purposes of this amendment, a "page" of a bill or federal regulation means a sheet of paper measuring no larger than 8.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, containing type-written text in double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins on all sides.


Would you approve this amendment?

Sure, try that with IRS, VA or DOT regulations. Congress could NEVER process that amount of minutia. Have you ever glanced at the JUST the CFR or the Federal Register? UN-FUCKING-WORKABLE!

From which libertarian website did you dredge this idiocy up?

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

Tell that to the person who crafted the OP and his proposed and ill informed Constitutional amendment. You did read the OP, right?

We agree that if a law is unworkable to the extent that it is burdensome to an absurd extreme, it should not become law. The author of the OP though has admitted that the purpose of his Constitutional amendment proposal was just that to the nth degree; to tie up Congress to the extent of contravening and halting their proper legislative duties to bring the House and Senate to a halt.

It's not the amendment that is "burdensome." It's all the massive regulations the executive branch creates the Congress never votes on. We pity the poor politicians who find actually reading and voting on the laws they impose on us to be "burdensome." Actually voting on all laws the government enforces is their proper legislative duty. Only a Stalinist would claim otherwise.

 

[Camp]

It may be helpful if some of the posters here, like the OP, knew the difference between laws and regulations and the different functions of the two.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Each federal regulation shall be approved by vote of the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President as legislation. No bill or federal regulation, or any portion thereof, presented to or approved by the House or Senate may be signed by the President and become law except that every portion (no longer than 10 pages) of such bill or federal regulation shall require a separate vote by both the House and Senate, and require the separate signature of the President, as well as a final vote on the bill or federal regulation as a whole, in the House and Senate, and signed by the President. If all portions of a bill or federal regulation are not approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President, the whole of the bill is null and void, requiring renewed approval of each portion by the House and Senate, and signature of the President.

For purposes of this amendment, a "page" of a bill or federal regulation means a sheet of paper measuring no larger than 8.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, containing type-written text in double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins on all sides.


Would you approve this amendment?

Sure, try that with IRS, VA or DOT regulations. Congress could NEVER process that amount of minutia. Have you ever glanced at the JUST the CFR or the Federal Register? UN-FUCKING-WORKABLE!

From which libertarian website did you dredge this idiocy up?

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

So the people we send to make laws don't have the time to actuallly do that? If it's unworkable it should never become law.

Tell that to the person who crafted the OP and his proposed and ill informed Constitutional amendment. You did read the OP, right?

We agree that if a law is unworkable to the extent that it is burdensome to an absurd extreme, it should not become law. The author of the OP though has admitted that the purpose of his Constitutional amendment proposal was just that to the nth degree; to tie up Congress to the extent of contravening and halting their proper legislative duties to bring the House and Senate to a halt.

I read and agree with the OP. These idiots throw a bunch of crap together they don't read or understand and then we have to deal with it. Screw that. I don't care if they don't get any new laws passed. It's not like we have a shortage of laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It may be helpful if some of the posters here, like the OP, knew the difference between laws and regulations and the different functions of the two.

Oh, Lord. Go fuck yourself.

It may also be helpful to stop pretending that you know the difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch. You should also stop pretending that you favor separation of powers.

 

[bripat9643]

It may be helpful if some of the posters here, like the OP, knew the difference between laws and regulations and the different functions of the two.

Regulations are laws that Congress never voted on.

 

[rightwinger]

Each federal regulation shall be approved by vote of the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President as legislation. No bill or federal regulation, or any portion thereof, presented to or approved by the House or Senate may be signed by the President and become law except that every portion (no longer than 10 pages) of such bill or federal regulation shall require a separate vote by both the House and Senate, and require the separate signature of the President, as well as a final vote on the bill or federal regulation as a whole, in the House and Senate, and signed by the President. If all portions of a bill or federal regulation are not approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President, the whole of the bill is null and void, requiring renewed approval of each portion by the House and Senate, and signature of the President.

For purposes of this amendment, a "page" of a bill or federal regulation means a sheet of paper measuring no larger than 8.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, containing type-written text in double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins on all sides.


Would you approve this amendment?

This amendment serves no purpose and would ensure that no legislation could be passed