Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Departments are actually a part of the cabinet, and therefore directly under the President and his power.

Besides that, the point is that they're technically unconstitutional. Since when did Congress get the power to control education?

Hint: About the time they decided to completely ignore the 10th Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law

That's an oversimplification. Like I said, the president runs them subject to the will of Congress. Congress expresses its will through statutes. Congress delegates its ruling making and adjudicatory authority to various agencies through organic or "creating" statutes that make agencies and determine what they do.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In the United States, many government agencies are organized under the executive branch of government, although a few are part of the judicial or legislative branches.

In the federal government, the executive branch, led by the president, controls the federal executive departments, which are led by secretaries who are members of the United States Cabinet. The many important independent agencies of the United States government created by statutes enacted by Congress exist outside of the federal executive departments but are still part of the executive branch.

Congress has also created some special judicial bodies known as Article I tribunals to handle some areas of administrative law.

The actions of executive agencies and independent agencies are the main focus of American administrative law. In response to the rapid creation of new independent agencies in the early twentieth century (see discussion below), Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946. Many of the independent agencies operate as miniature versions[citation needed] of the tripartite federal government, with the authority to "legislate" (through rulemaking; see Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations), "adjudicate" (through administrative hearings), and to "execute" administrative goals (through agency enforcement personnel). Because the United States Constitution sets no limits on this tripartite authority of administrative agencies, Congress enacted the APA to establish fair administrative law procedures to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process.

The American Bar Association's official journal concerning administrative law is the Administrative Law Review, a quarterly publication that is managed and edited by students at the Washington College of Law.

I've sued under the APA (Administrative Procedures Act). The president has to direct agencies within the confines of these laws both procedurally (how they make regulations) and substantively (they can only act with purposes congress dictates). For example, if the agency's organic statute (creating statute} says "on the record" when speaking of a hearing, that means you get a formal hearing with lots of procedural safeguards instead of just some official brushing you off. This is why they can't just take away your Social Security Benefits even and especially just because the President feels like it. Presidential power and restraints on it are vastly misunderstood in this country. This is an enormous area of law and I know lawyers who do nothing but practice in this field, especially SS, Disability, Medicare, environmental law, and business/trade regulation. For the most part, this is something they really only begin to teach in law school and oftentimes not even there.

As for the 10th amendment, it's largely becoming less and less. The commerce clause is far reaching and will reach farther in an interconnected world and country as "interstate commerce" and indeed international commerce expands. As long as it's "interstate commerce" congress can regulate about anything, and the definition has no logical limits (the courts have been hashing these out for well over a century). The government can make an argument that nearly everything can be commerce in some way, except perhaps when it conflicts with traditionally state held "police powers." However, DOMA totally screws that up by not recognizing traditionally state level defined marriage (which would still be subject to the federal constitution when restricting who can get married, much as interracial and interfaith marriages were once restricted unconstitutionally). The government will say it can regulate education because education is a component part of the labor market, which is certainly a part of commerce as a component part....

There's a common misconception that Richard Nixon created the EPA. In fact he proposed the idea to Congress and Congress created the EPA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA
"The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.[3]"

Bottom line: The president may make executive decisions about agencies but if he ever runs afoul of the limits imposed upon him by Congress concerning those agencies, he's asking for a lawsuit. The President simply cannot make law, but only carry it out as Congress dictates. Here, with agency law, Congress has delegated certain of its powers to agencies and told the President to Run them according to how it has delegated. This is still a significant authority, but it is bounded and crossing those bounds doesn't work if someone calls you on it.

Edit: God damn it Alabama, you really can't choose not to pay taxes (or impose unconstitutional ones) and skip anti corruption measures like this.... Although, thanks for taking the corruption focus off Cleveland.... http://news.yahoo.com/ala-county-votes-largest-municipal-bankruptcy-224320185.html

[sluissa]

It's sad. Alabama really is a beautiful state. If only they could get their act together.

[Andir]

Since when does the President follow the purposes set forth by Congress?  Lately they've been acting like nominated CEOs instead of executors.

[sluissa]

Since when does the President follow the purposes set forth by Congress?  Lately they've been acting like nominated CEOs instead of executors.

When you notionally separate the power of government into three branches, it's quite a bit easier for the branch that's essentially a single person to exercise their share of the power effectively than it is to get 535 different people split between two or more different parties to decide how they want to exercise theirs.

The media also tends to focus more on the President's actions than congress as a whole, since it's easier to cover and make a single person interesting than it is to have to cover hundreds of different people, many of whom will be unknown to most viewers unless... maybe... they happen to live in the area that person represents. As a result, a lot of people just kind of forget that congress is a large, and important part of government and instead blame everything on Obama. I refuse to believe he's blameless, and I do feel I made a bad choice voting for him at this point. (Although I have no idea who I would have voted for otherwise.) However, the problems with the government are systemic, beyond party lines and beyond the president, or even congress.

As I said though, at least notionally, the president does bow to congress in most issues, unless they're specifically delegated to the office.

I'm not old enough to remember the first Bush well, or much of Clinton's reign, but it seems to me as if Obama's done more negotiating with congress than any president I've known of. It's sort of like he's still playing the Senator. Just now he has a big stick he can wave around. (Veto Pen)

[Andir]

Since when does the President follow the purposes set forth by Congress?  Lately they've been acting like nominated CEOs instead of executors.

When you notionally separate the power of government into three branches, it's quite a bit easier for the branch that's essentially a single person to exercise their share of the power effectively than it is to get 535 different people split between two or more different parties to decide how they want to exercise theirs.

The media also tends to focus more on the President's actions than congress as a whole, since it's easier to cover and make a single person interesting than it is to have to cover hundreds of different people, many of whom will be unknown to most viewers unless... maybe... they happen to live in the area that person represents. As a result, a lot of people just kind of forget that congress is a large, and important part of government and instead blame everything on Obama. I refuse to believe he's blameless, and I do feel I made a bad choice voting for him at this point. (Although I have no idea who I would have voted for otherwise.) However, the problems with the government are systemic, beyond party lines and beyond the president, or even congress.

As I said though, at least notionally, the president does bow to congress in most issues, unless they're specifically delegated to the office.

I'm not old enough to remember the first Bush well, or much of Clinton's reign, but it seems to me as if Obama's done more negotiating with congress than any president I've known of. It's sort of like he's still playing the Senator. Just now he has a big stick he can wave around. (Veto Pen)

The previous Presidents worked with Congress excessively.  You just didn't see it.  (Media, etc.  ie: The point you made about being "interesting".  It's the first black President [as if that means a damn thing] so media is trying to portray him as someone unique and different.)

As far as blaming Obama, the same thing happened to Bush Jr. ... the same thing happened to Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon... and those are just off the top of my head.  It goes back even further than that.

The problem is that the "share of power" is not really shared power.  The President really has just two responsibilities: Veto and Execution.  He is supposed to do the will of Congress but it too often ends up as him dictating what Congress is supposed to be doing (ie: the CEO).  He's supposed to be nominated by the people to protect the people form the will of the Congress with that veto power.  Sadly, he's been an instrument of the Party in practically every President I can think of as far back as I can remember instead of his intended role as an instrument of the people.

I personally believe that the President should be non-partisan, but that's a near impossibility.  Even if they claimed they were not party members, they still have personal leanings.  There should be no party funding to the election process.  Off the top of my head, I think the Presidential election should be re-examined to be more hierarchical.  Something like: Each County would elect a candidate, then each State should elect candidates from that pool who would compete on a national level for the Federal seat.  Each candidate would be given an equal share of campaign dollars out of a shared election pool.  I'm sure the current party primaries are supposed to be this type of intermediary, but all it does is filter out the candidate that follows the will of the party (usually from someone who's politically connected) instead of selecting one of the people from across the country to perform the duties.

[Truean]

So, I'm gonna need to rant for a bit, because god damn I'm very frustrated with this crap I'm doing:

So here's the thing on political parties and their poisoned primaries:
(Aka, how speeches work well, and we all know I like to link my arguments by color coding. I have multiple ink pens, all with different colors! )

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Start with something people can relate to to lower listener resistance that relates to your overall theme by analogy. Then relate it to your theme and why it matters. Use a repeatable catch phrase, here, "Billion dollar behemoths, in green. Repeat said catch phrase. And, the hint of impropriety, lovely. Take a look at how the "unhealthy things in cola" correlate to the "unhealthy things in Political parties, like big tobacco, etc"

"My mother's friend, Linda, often told me, "There are only two kinds of people in this world. Them that drink Coke. And them that drink Pepsi." Naturally, she got that idea from Coke and Pepsi. If there were other colas, who cared, Coke and Pepsi were it. Billion dollar behemoths who, in their own advertising, would each refer to the other guy as the only alternative. Just so long as people keep on gulping down  one or the other sugar water. Both are unhealthy, (fructose corn syrup, sugar, phosphoric acid, sodium and who knows what else I don't want to think of) makes you wonder if they're in cahoots....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Specifically state how the analogy relates to your point and use that catch phrase. If at all possible make your point as close to your analogy as you can. Here, we're using the, "you've only got pepsi and coke to chose from which isn't much of a choice and don't they taste the same," argument. Use that same taste argument to elaborate on how the two colas, like the two parties are similar. Also link how the actions of Pepsi and Coke, through advertising, relate to the two parties. Ask where the choice is and then state there is none and the consequence thereof as that consequence relates to the choice of coke/pepsi/the parties.

When it comes to presidential elections, we again have only two billion dollar behemoths in control. The American people might get to vote for Commander in Chief but they only get two choices that taste quite similar. Choices selected by two very private organizations who are both in bed with Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Banking, every Big you can think of. And as a result we only get the candidates that big business and the two parties decide to favor us with. So where's the choice, the Democracy? The sad fact is it seems that Democracy has lost its way. And as long as we remain a two party system we'll always be denied a taste of that delicious RC Cola because Coke and Pepsi have cornered the market.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

List specifics to go with the general overall points.

Both the Democratic and Republican National Committees make whatever unhealthy rules they like as "private organizations. Never mind that delegates can ignore primary election results. Who cares that states like Florida and Michigan are discounted? Big deal that in Iowa the Democrats don't get to cast secret ballots. Or that in Nevada the caucuses are often on a Saturday which means observant Jews cant vote. Even better! No one even cares to remember that the last election's Democratic nominee either was or almost was decided by super special delegates! [Snark] Political insiders who don't have to listen to the voters at all.... Insiders who according to DNC and RNC rules are allowed to, and do, accept money from the candidates. Insiders who, in fact, did accept over a million dollars from the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Transition from last paragraph linking the ideas of political bribery/acceptance of campaign ontributions. Last paragraph we discussed specific points of inequity. Now discuss the consequences of those inequities, while tying things back to the basic argument, "there is no choice."

Not that we care, and in fact Scalia supports this bribery as free speech, but there are consequences. Presidents get to start wars. And lots of kids, the innocent kind, die in them. There are consequences. And as long as presidents get to start wars and pick Supreme Court Justices, as long as they represent the American people to the world, a world which increasingly loathes us because of our presidents, we the people should get to weigh in and we really don't.... Look at the choices this grand two-party system produced last time. There was McCain, a grumpy old man who wanted to stay at war for maybe just a hundred years versus whoever the Democrats picked, which ended up being Obama. A choice which may have very well come down to some superdelegates who don't know or care what We the People think and even if they did know, they could ignore it.... Democracy?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Argumentary conclusion brings it all together while hammering home that desired conclusion, here in Navy, that they are in cahoots.... The bar/two types of booze reference goes right back to pepsi/coke and the parties, and the "imitating sugar water coated nominees" links 'em right up with the pepsi/ coke comparison.

Whatever one wants to call this nomination process, it's anything but democratic. Two political parties pulling the strings. It's like going to bar and being told can drink whatever you want. They only serve pepsi and coke and the menu is fixed! That having been said, being a private organization, the RNC and DNC can set whatever crazy rules, including bribery they like and call it public democracy, while Scalia calls it free speech.... And everyone wonders how we get stuck with crop after crop of imitating sugar water coated nominees failing to represent us. Everybody loses. Standardized, voting, system, including primaries.... That'd fix it, but no we have to let the political parties to whatever they feel like doing.... The political parties, are, in cahoots....
______________________________

As for the president working with congress and following its will, that only applies to laws they have passed and the language thereof.... Also, it only works if Congress or specifically someone with standing to sue calls the president on it. Frankly Congress doesn't know what the crap it is doing, has an incredibly low approval rating, and isn't clear what on earth its "will" is, because it hasn't done jack, much less passed any laws recently that amount to anything. Congress is pulling itself apart in multiple different directions. How do you follow that, and where? Clinton was too busy ... being busy.... Bush started messing things up on this level and Obama just kept right on going....

[Sips Dr. Pepper]

This was more fun to write than my motion in limine, but ... I should really do that now. I've got another case to win and not get paid for.... Also I've overloaded everyone here on color or caused them to skip right over me; win either way!

[scriver]

Dude, that is impossible to read. It literally hurts my eyes.

[Rose]

Dude, that is impossible to read. It literally hurts my eyes.

just select it.

Also screw you all, I got my glass of milk to keep me happy.

[Andir]

Dude, that is impossible to read. It literally hurts my eyes.

I had to highlight the whole post in order to negate colors so I could read it... :p

[Truean]

This is never a problem when I just pen it out and speak it but I guess it's a different medium.... Here, tags omitted.... Guess the organization isn't what people look for to be illustrated.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So, I'm gonna need to rant for a bit, because god damn I'm very frustrated with this crap I'm doing:

So here's the thing on political parties and their poisoned primaries:
(Aka, how speeches work well, and we all know I like to link my arguments by color coding. I have multiple ink pens, all with different colors! )
"My mother's friend, Linda, often told me, "There are only two kinds of people in this world. Them that drink Coke. And them that drink Pepsi." Naturally, she got that idea from Coke and Pepsi. If there were other colas, who cared, Coke and Pepsi were it. Billion dollar behemoths who, in their own advertising, would each refer to the other guy as the only alternative. Just so long as people keep on gulping down one or the other sugar water. Both are unhealthy, (fructose corn syrup, sugar, phosphoric acid, sodium and who knows what else I don't want to think of) makes you wonder if they're in cahoots....

When it comes to presidential elections, we again have only two billion dollar behemoths in control. The American people might get to vote for Commander in Chief but they only get two choices that taste quite similar. Choices selected by two very private organizations who are both in bed with Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Banking, every Big you can think of. And as a result we only get the candidates that big business and the two parties decide to favor us with. So where's the choice, the Democracy? The sad fact is it seems that Democracy has lost its way. And as long as we remain a two party system we'll always be denied a taste of that delicious RC Cola because Coke and Pepsi have cornered the market.

Both the Democratic and Republican National Committees make whatever unhealthy rules they like as "private organizations. Never mind that delegates can ignore primary election results. Who cares that states like Florida and Michigan are discounted? Big deal that in Iowa the Democrats don't get to cast secret ballots. Or that in Nevada the caucuses are often on a Saturday which means observant Jews cant vote. Even better! No one even cares to remember that the last election's Democratic nominee either was or almost was decided by super special delegates! [Snark] Political insiders who don't have to listen to the voters at all.... Insiders who according to DNC and RNC rules are allowed to, and do, accept money from the candidates. Insiders who, in fact, did accept over a million dollars from the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

Not that we care, and in fact Scalia supports this bribery as free speech, but there are consequences. Presidents get to start wars. And lots of kids, the innocent kind, die in them. There are consequences. And as long as presidents get to start wars and pick Supreme Court Justices, as long as they represent the American people to the world, a world which increasingly loathes us because of our presidents, we the people should get to weigh in and we really don't.... Look at the choices this grand two-party system produced last time. There was McCain, a grumpy old man who wanted to stay at war for maybe just a hundred years versus whoever the Democrats picked, which ended up being Obama. A choice which may have very well come down to some superdelegates who don't know or care what We the People think and even if they did know, they could ignore it.... Democracy?

Whatever one wants to call this nomination process, it's anything but democratic. Two political parties pulling the strings. It's like going to bar and being told can drink whatever you want. They only serve pepsi and coke and the menu is fixed! That having been said, being a private organization, the RNC and DNC can set whatever crazy rules, including bribery they like and call it public democracy, while Scaliacalls it free speech.... And everyone wonders how we get stuck with crop after crop of imitating sugar water coated nominees failing to represent us. Everybody loses. Standardized, voting, system, including primaries.... That'd fix it, but no we have to let the political parties to whatever they feel like doing.... The political parties, are, in cahoots....
______________________________

As for the president working with congress and following its will, that only applies to laws they have passed and the language thereof.... Also, it only works if Congress or specifically someone with standing to sue calls the president on it. Frankly Congress doesn't know what the crap it is doing, has an incredibly low approval rating, and isn't clear what on earth its "will" is, because it hasn't done jack, much less passed any laws recently that amount to anything. Congress is pulling itself apart in multiple different directions. How do you follow that, and where? Clinton was too busy ... being busy.... Bush started messing things up on this level and Obama just kept right on going....

[Sips Dr. Pepper]

This was more fun to write than my motion in limine, but ... I should really do that now. I've got another case to win and not get paid for.... Also I've overloaded everyone here on color or caused them to skip right over me; win either way!
_____________________

[scriver]

Thank you, I had quoted it just removed some of them myself and then you were there when I pressed preview. Much better now

[Criptfeind]

Most things don't copy the color information from a copy paste. So just copy past it into the quick Reply bar if you are having issues reading.

[Truean]

Thank you, I had quoted it just removed some of them myself and then you were there when I pressed preview. Much better now

You're welcomes. I've had people say they like it and other people say they don't. Meh, I dunno, I just try to keep the arguments as tightly organized as possible and realizing what goes where relating to what helps with that a lot. Plus, you know, colors, yay....

[G-Flex]

Organization is good. Switching colors frequently like that is a strain on the eyes and makes reading kind of a pain.

[ECrownofFire]

Thought this would be related to the thread, seeing as it includes LGBT stuff.

"Rugby player woke up gay after stroke"

Two things can result from this. One, that it's definitely proven that being gay is hardcoded into the brain.

Or two, obviously since it resulted from a stroke, being gay is a result of brain damage!

In other words, nothing really changes.