Strangled With Red Tape

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,119
60,688
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Once one is committed to total government, one which is able to regulate every single aspect of citizen's existence, i.e., Progressive/Liberal/Democrat, they one must exercise their authority via statues, rules and regulation without end!

By the nature of this adventurism, regulation becomes restrictive, oppressive, damaging to lives and to the economy of the nation, and.....mindless.


The bureaucrats whose jobs are at stake need to show their work ethic, and their creativity by coming up with some way to regulate...regulate even when regulation is uncalled for.




2. Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. U.S. Code Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE US Law LII Legal Information Institute Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives.
And these rules have the full force of law!
Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!


a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While such a suit is currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.


d. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
From a speech by James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” broadcast on C-Span.



3. "Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014
Just in the last few weeks, the Obama administration has proposed or imposed over 1,200 new regulations on the American people that will add even more to thealready crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine. According to data compiled from the federal government’sRegulations.govwebsite by the Daily Caller, most of the new regulatory schemes involve energy and the environment — 139 during a mere two-week period in December, to be precise. In all, the Obama administration foisted more than 75,000 pages of regulations on the United States in 2014, costing over $200 billion, on the low end, if new proposed rules are taken into account..."
Obama Imposed 75 000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014


The result is a relationship between government and the people in which the original view of who works for whom has been reversed.
 
c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.

And just where do you think the regulatory establishment ideology lives? In Congress, the White House and USSC.........
 
c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.

And just where do you think the regulatory establishment ideology lives? In Congress, the White House and USSC.........

That's why we have courts, Dear
 
c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.

And just where do you think the regulatory establishment ideology lives? In Congress, the White House and USSC.........

That's why we have courts, Dear
Courts with people in position that were put there, not elected by the masses which rule on such and play along...
 
Why do people make such a big deal out of regs. unless they are being hurt by them? I cannot tell that any are impacting my adversely.

There is such a thing as shouting wolf too often.
Don't get me wrong as I have no use for Obama and his cadre of goons. Hopefully the next pres. will set some things straight again.
 
Why do people make such a big deal out of regs. unless they are being hurt by them? I cannot tell that any are impacting my adversely.

There is such a thing as shouting wolf too often.
Don't get me wrong as I have no use for Obama and his cadre of goons. Hopefully the next pres. will set some things straight again.
c3549d16.gif
 
Why do people make such a big deal out of regs. unless they are being hurt by them? I cannot tell that any are impacting my adversely.

There is such a thing as shouting wolf too often.
Don't get me wrong as I have no use for Obama and his cadre of goons. Hopefully the next pres. will set some things straight again.



Y'know....there are actually folks who decry bank robbery......even though it isn't their bank being robbed.

Can ya' figure that????
 
1. Once one is committed to total government, one which is able to regulate every single aspect of citizen's existence, i.e., Progressive/Liberal/Democrat, they one must exercise their authority via statues, rules and regulation without end!

By the nature of this adventurism, regulation becomes restrictive, oppressive, damaging to lives and to the economy of the nation, and.....mindless.


The bureaucrats whose jobs are at stake need to show their work ethic, and their creativity by coming up with some way to regulate...regulate even when regulation is uncalled for.




2. Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. U.S. Code Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE US Law LII Legal Information Institute Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives.
And these rules have the full force of law!
Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!


a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While such a suit is currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.


d. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
From a speech by James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” broadcast on C-Span.



3. "Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014
Just in the last few weeks, the Obama administration has proposed or imposed over 1,200 new regulations on the American people that will add even more to thealready crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine. According to data compiled from the federal government’sRegulations.govwebsite by the Daily Caller, most of the new regulatory schemes involve energy and the environment — 139 during a mere two-week period in December, to be precise. In all, the Obama administration foisted more than 75,000 pages of regulations on the United States in 2014, costing over $200 billion, on the low end, if new proposed rules are taken into account..."
Obama Imposed 75 000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014


The result is a relationship between government and the people in which the original view of who works for whom has been reversed.

De-regulation led to Three Mile Island. Exxon Valdez, BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster, etc. To sya nothing of the 2008 crash, Housing and Loan scandal and various other economic disasters.

More regulations leads to slightly less profits but increased safety and oversight. Business exists solely to make profits. To hell with human beings. But that's the nature of capitalism. Isn't personal, it's business.
 
1. Once one is committed to total government, one which is able to regulate every single aspect of citizen's existence, i.e., Progressive/Liberal/Democrat, they one must exercise their authority via statues, rules and regulation without end!

By the nature of this adventurism, regulation becomes restrictive, oppressive, damaging to lives and to the economy of the nation, and.....mindless.


The bureaucrats whose jobs are at stake need to show their work ethic, and their creativity by coming up with some way to regulate...regulate even when regulation is uncalled for.




2. Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. U.S. Code Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE US Law LII Legal Information Institute Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives.
And these rules have the full force of law!
Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!


a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While such a suit is currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.


d. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
From a speech by James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” broadcast on C-Span.



3. "Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014
Just in the last few weeks, the Obama administration has proposed or imposed over 1,200 new regulations on the American people that will add even more to thealready crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine. According to data compiled from the federal government’sRegulations.govwebsite by the Daily Caller, most of the new regulatory schemes involve energy and the environment — 139 during a mere two-week period in December, to be precise. In all, the Obama administration foisted more than 75,000 pages of regulations on the United States in 2014, costing over $200 billion, on the low end, if new proposed rules are taken into account..."
Obama Imposed 75 000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014


The result is a relationship between government and the people in which the original view of who works for whom has been reversed.

De-regulation led to Three Mile Island. Exxon Valdez, BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster, etc. To sya nothing of the 2008 crash, Housing and Loan scandal and various other economic disasters.

More regulations leads to slightly less profits but increased safety and oversight. Business exists solely to make profits. To hell with human beings. But that's the nature of capitalism. Isn't personal, it's business.



There are many fearful, low self-esteem individuals who feel the need to be instructed in every one of life's activities....

I, on the other hand, believe in liberty.

4.... from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.


a.“Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.”
The Birth of the Administrative State Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]




"....of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise-..."
 
"strangled"
"committed"

Naw - too easy.

Just as its easy to yell about "deregulation" without ever giving a thought to the ramifications.
 
Why do people make such a big deal out of regs. unless they are being hurt by them? I cannot tell that any are impacting my adversely.

There is such a thing as shouting wolf too often.
Don't get me wrong as I have no use for Obama and his cadre of goons. Hopefully the next pres. will set some things straight again.
The government makes up stupid rules which only costs businesses money. Money that small business don't have and since the government can shut a company down on a whim the money comes from the employees. No raises. And so sometimes lay offs.
 
The OP is a fraud.

No total government exists, and despite what the far right wants, will not exist.
 
"....of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise-..."

So...how does this Progressive 'totalist' government use 'expertise'?
...and how 'expert' is it?



5. The largest portion of 'reliable Democrat voters' are those who either shrug off the excesses of big Progressive government, or who mouth such inanities as 'well....I want clean air and clean water'....as though those on the other side love the opposite.


The case of EPA vs Ottati and Goss is a fine example of the aim and the aberration.

A small company, set up to recycle used steel drums, came to the attention of the EPA. Seems that the dumpsters, into which they emptied said drums, leaked...

"...heavy sludges, incinerator residue, and drum residuals. ... EPA and private party cleanup actions at the site included ... removing leaking drums, and removing tons of contaminated soils and debris. Approximately 12,800 tons of soil, drums, and metals; 101,700 tons of flammable sludge; 6,000 cubic yards of flammable liquid; and other materials were removed.....Approximately 4,700 cubic yards of contaminated soils were treated onsite by low temperature thermal aeration at a cost of roughly $2 million."
Ottati Goss Kingston Steel Drum Superfund US EPA


There's more...but you get the point.

Good job EPA experts???

Or over-regulation due to a need to justify their existence?


More to come.
 
Not only do Progressives/Liberals/Democrats attribute undeserved accomplishments, qualities, and characteristics to their favs,,...recall how Libs referred to Obama as 'savior,' 'messiah,' and 'Jesus'....and now pretend they didn't......

...but they do the same with bureaucrats, Leftist academics (just say 'studies show' and watch 'em bow), and agency pencil-pushers.

Like those 'experts' at the EPA....


6. After the cleanup, and collection, reimbursement by the company, the EPA decided further cleanup was needed and required the company to incinerate the dirt to remove "a small residual amount of diluted PCBs," and gasoline at a cost of $9.3 million.


a. Ottati and Goss hired labs, reported that the cleanup had been adequate, and the EPA took them to court. Five years of litigation, and the US District Court of New Hampshire ruled in O and G's favor!



b. Totalist government, having unlimited funds and lawyers, the EPA appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another five years of litigation...and on April 4, 1990, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's, ruling: so Ottati and Goss won....sort of.



Ottati and Goss won the case.....but the company was financially ruined as it turns out...for no good reason.


Read the basis for the EPA 'expert's' actions...to follow.
 

Forum List

Back
Top