A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by whodey
If you go back and read my posts, you will see why I object to the legislative branch delegating to the executive branch. It all has to do with the Constitution when it talks about nondelegation amongst the branches. Although the Supremes nixed the Constitutional objections, I still feel it is a breach of the seperation of powers that was intended.

Where does the Constitution talk about "nondelegation amongst the branches"? An exact reference would be nice.

Originally posted by whodey
Did I say there was a conspiracy abroad? No, what I am saying is that our human nature dictates that we seek power, secure power, and then acquire more power. Therefore, the "natural" order of things is collectivism and what we have seen over the last century in the US.

I can't say that this a very intelligible post of yours. How exactly does "the natural order of things" come into it? what exactly is it that you're saying here?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where does the Constitution talk about "nondelegation amongst the branches"? An exact reference would be nice.

I am referring to Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

Originally posted by generalissimo
I can't say that this a very intelligible post of yours. How exactly does "the natural order of things" come into it? what exactly is it that you're saying here?

The natural order of things is for power to be collected and centralized. In other words, those with the most power exercise it and slowly take power from others to further empower themselves. It is the "natural state" of man to take this course of action.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What haven't they?

Why do you think that so many of Obama's nominations for positions that required senate confirmation remained unconfirmed for so long? Why were there so many more of Obama's nominations that remained unconfirmed than GWB or other presidents?

Why do you think Reid set a record for actually avoiding filibusters?

http://www.roll ...[text shortened]... ters skyrocketed after Obama's election? It's not because the democrats were filibustering.

To be an opposing party one must act like one. This is no surprirse. However, look at the record of Obama. He has been wildly successful in pretty much everything he has set out to do. Simply put, he is a political terminator of sorts. In fact, even with a failing economy and a society sick of spending and wars abroad with rising taxes and energy rates, no doubt, he will find a way back into the oval office in 2012.

Originally posted by whodey
The natural order of things is for power to be collected and centralized. In other words, those with the most power exercise it and slowly take power from others to further empower themselves. It is the "natural state" of man to take this course of action.

Yes, it was like that until mankind invented democracy.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Perhaps. But would you agree that the inferences the people of Massachusetts made should not have affected the passage of the bill as willed by the majority of Senators?

Yes, but the reverse will not be true will it? I mean, if the people will that Obamacare be repealed, you will have filibuster hell in Congress. In short, you might as well cast Obamacare in stone just like all the other great entitlement beasts created over the years.

Originally posted by whodey
To be an opposing party one must act like one. This is no surprirse. However, look at the record of Obama. He has been wildly successful in pretty much everything he has set out to do. Simply put, he is a political terminator of sorts. In fact, even with a failing economy and a society sick of spending and wars abroad with rising taxes and energy rates, no doubt, he will find a way back into the oval office in 2012.

His presidency has been pretty much a failure so far, especially considering he is continuing Bush/Reagan-type economic policies.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Didn't the Supreme Court actually call out Republicans for obstructing judiciary confirmations? Also, don't forget the DREAM Act, as well as the 9/11 First Responders' Health Care Act, which Republicans didn't support until public pressure mounted.

See, they have a feather to hang in their hats I suppose. Do you think it makes them feel as if they have a voice in government? 😛

Originally posted by wittywonka
Congress is enacting a tax on anyone who doesn't own health care insurance, and taxing is well within its powers.

Watch this video of Obama saying that it is NOT a tax.

http://patdollard.com/2010/07/changing-his-story-obama-now-defends-obamacare-as-a-tax/

You see, he had to do this to try and sell it to the American people. After all, the American people don't like to hear the words "tax increase".

However, now that it has passed, he now has to sell it to the Supreme Court. Now the administration is touting it as a tax so that it will not be declared unconstitutional.

Really its whatever you want it to be. In fact, we could come up with a new term if you like. I now, how about the happy-go-lucky tax payer fund?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
His presidency has been pretty much a failure so far, especially considering he is continuing Bush/Reagan-type economic policies.

List his accomplishments beside his failures. In other words, back up what you are saying.

Originally posted by whodey
I am referring to Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

That says nothing about "nondelegation amongst the branches". The "necessary and proper" clause implies that the Congress can delegate responsibilities to Executive branch departments and independent agencies so long as it is not a complete surrender of power and Congress has done so since virtually the beginning of the United States. Right wingers really don't have a clue as regards the Constitution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That says nothing about "nondelegation amongst the branches". The "necessary and proper" clause implies that the Congress can delegate responsibilities to Executive branch departments and independent agencies so long as it is not a complete surrender of power and Congress has done so since virtually the beginning of the United States. Right wingers really don't have a clue as regards the Constitution.

Why delegate to the executive branch? What are the benefits?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, it was like that until mankind invented democracy.

With a two decade low 25% approval rating of Congress for the last 4 or so years I would have to question the success of democracy in the US. It seems that these hated figures just seem to find a way to claw their way back into power no matter what.

Originally posted by whodey
Why delegate to the executive branch? What are the benefits?

"Why" is not a Constitutional question. It's up to Congress to decide whether in particular cases the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.