Americans have a come to Jesus moment. Are we a constitutional republic, or
not? Are we giving lip service to a
federalist system, or, are we to be ruled by an all powerful central
government? It seems we’ve opted for the
latter.
Time after time, we’ve watched Congress flail about
while the Obama administration flouts the federal bureaucracy by enacting rules
and regulations without recourse. Recently,
the FCC declared the internet a public utility without the required 30 day
public comment period. Isn’t that similar
to how this whole Obamacare fiasco came about?
Does anyone remember Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, “We need to pass it, so
everyone can see what’s in it.”
These bureaucracies shouldn’t have the ability to
create rules and regulations that have the force of law. The U.S. Constitution specifically states that
only Congress has legislative powers.
However, this same body abdicated their responsibilities by enabling
federal bureaucrats with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.
Can Congress overturn a bureaucratic rule and
regulation? Sure, they can. The Congressional Review Act was passed in
1996. Congress granted itself the
ability, with permission from President Bill Clinton, to overturn a
bureaucratic edict. Here is how Wikipedia
described the law:
The Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. § 801-808), was enacted by the United States
Congress as section
251 of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–121), also known as the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The law allows
Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal
regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint
resolution, to overrule a regulation.[1]
For the regulation to be invalidated,
the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the
President, or must be passed over the President's veto by two-thirds of both
Houses of Congress.[2]
Isn’t that
delicious? The Constitution states that
Congress can override a presidential veto on one of their bills by that same
margin. So, basically, a fourth branch
of government has as much power, if not more, as Congress. Isn’t that interesting? In other words, it’s almost impossible for
Congress to override a federal bureaucracy’s regulation.
The deck is even more stacked now that progressives
rule the judiciary. Liberal judges can flippantly
strike down a state’s constitution, or law, by simply declaring it violates the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They do this by establishing precedence, and
eventually, their rulings no longer reflect original intent of the law.
Another progressive favorite is declaring the plaintiff
has no standing. It’s no longer
fashionable to ponder the legality, or for that fact, the constitutionality of
a law, such as Obamacare. Now, judges
demand one must show irreparable harm. How
convenient is that? Here is an excerpt
from a Bloomberg article:
Yet if it’s possible
to deduce from the record that the plaintiffs qualify for hardship exemptions
from paying for insurance, then it’s within the court’s prerogative to consider
the issue. The reason is tricky but interesting. Under the Supreme Court’s
jurisprudence, an “injury in fact” is a constitutionally necessary prerequisite
for the court to hear a case. If there’s no such injury, there’s no “case or
controversy” that the court would be entitled to hear under the Constitution.
Therefore, the court has held, the question of standing is what’s called “jurisdictional”
– and such a jurisdictional question can be raised by the court even if the
parties never mention the problem.
Must
the court address the question of standing? Here things get murkier. In theory,
if the court knows it doesn’t have standing, it lacks the power to proceed. In
practice, the court sometimes hears cases where, in retrospect, standing seems
not to have existed.
Does
the Constitution still have standing? Not
in the Age of Obama.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment