Originally posted by no1marauder "Why" is not a Constitutional question. It's up to Congress to decide whether in particular cases the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
My question to you is, why was the executive branch chosen by the legislative branch for reglatory purposes? Or perhaps you don't know.
Originally posted by whodey My question to you is, why was the executive branch chosen by the legislative branch for reglatory purposes? Or perhaps you don't know.
Should Congress have to debate and vote on every application for a new drug or can it delegate that decision to the Food and Drug Administration (with provisions for Congressional override of such decisions)?
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.
Did I ever advocate a return to the "natural state of things"?
Originally posted by whodey 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.
And do you find low approval ratings in all democracies?
Originally posted by whodey My question to you is, why was the executive branch chosen by the legislative branch for reglatory purposes? Or perhaps you don't know.
Once again you seem to be ignoring just how complex society and government have become ever since 1789...
Originally posted by no1marauder Should Congress have to debate and vote on every application for a new drug or can it delegate that decision to the Food and Drug Administration (with provisions for Congressional override of such decisions)?
Why not create departments within the legislative branch apart from the executive branch?
Another arugment might be for Congress to be wary when seemingly exceeding their limits of power. Therefore, if they are passing legislation that requires creating a whole other branch of government, perhaps they should mind their own business and let the states handle their own affairs.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra How are you quantifying affairs?
For the most part, Constitutionally the federal government should only be concerned with national defense, handling disputes between states and immigration. Everything else should be left for the states. to decide.
Originally posted by whodey For the most part, Constitutionally the federal government should only be concerned with national defense, handling disputes between states and immigration. Everything else should be left for the states. to decide.
Originally posted by whodey Why not create departments within the legislative branch apart from the executive branch?
Another arugment might be for Congress to be wary when seemingly exceeding their limits of power. Therefore, if they are passing legislation that requires creating a whole other branch of government, perhaps they should mind their own business and let the states handle their own affairs.
Because the Executive Department executes the laws. Congress hasn't created "a whole other branch of government", they've created agencies within the Executive Department. That's what the Constitution permits.
Congress hasn't exceeded their limits just because you and other right wing loons make vague assertions that they have.
Originally posted by whodey Are you suggesting that states are not capable of handling the majority of their affairs?
Im suggesting that the existence of the federal bureaucracy has the complexities of modern life as a cause. Federalism has to be preserved, for the sake of effective local administration, but I don't think the states are capable of handling the regulation currently in the hands of federal agencies, for the obvious reason.
Originally posted by generalissimo Im suggesting that the existence of the federal bureaucracy has the complexities of modern life as a cause. Federalism has to be preserved, for the sake of effective local administration, but I don't think the states are capable of handling the regulation currently in the hands of federal agencies, for the obvious reason.
What are the obvious reasons why states cannot mind their own affairs?
Originally posted by no1marauder Because the Executive Department executes the laws. Congress hasn't created "a whole other branch of government", they've created agencies within the Executive Department. That's what the Constitution permits.
Congress hasn't exceeded their limits just because you and other right wing loons make vague assertions that they have.
Why not create an legislative department? Why an executive department?
Originally posted by whodey Why not create an legislative department? Why an executive department?
What part of "the Executive Department executes the laws" is most difficult for you to grasp?
Of course, Congress can (and has) created fully or quasi-independent agencies like the Post Office or the Fed. It's up to them how they want to structure the government (within Constitutional limits).
22 Jan '11 16:121 edit
A Congress that reasserts its power
Back to Top