Something new..and not good..passed the House on the down low

[tazmaniac]

Any regulatory actions will have to be approved by the Congress and they have 70 days to do it. So all food safety regulations, predatory lending, monopoly rules and labor protection laws will have to go through Congress to be approved with no expertise in whatever the matter is. This extremely broad law is the Koch brothers dream come true!! Please read about it and consider action.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-most-dangerous-bill-y_b_14067390.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

[malaise]

1. Kick for visibility

Last edited Sun Jul 2, 2017, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Off to the greatest page to expose these scumbags

And welcome to DU

[northoftheborder]

2. Thanks for bringing this up. Had not heard about it.

[spooky3]

3. Maybe the lawyers can chime in--doesn't that mean that

The legislative branch is trying to take power that belongs to the executive branch? Is there a chance this will be challenged in court?

[onenote]

22. No. All legislative power is vested in congress

The authority of executive branch agencies to adopt regulation is delegated to them by Congress and Congress can withdraw or condition an agency's delegated authority whenever and however it chooses.

[spooky3]

30. Thanks--but wouldn't that require amending each law

Inidividually?

[onenote]

34. No

[onecaliberal]

4. Uhm they can't just arbitrarily say all laws regarding regulations are suddenly not laws.

What in the fucking hell.

[Wednesdays]

11. Who's gonna stop them?

[onenote]

23. Actually they can

The power of agencies to adopt regulations comes from Congress and Congress can limit or condition the exercise of that delegated authority as it chooses.

[elleng]

5. And the reason for regulatory agencies:

Congress can't handle the detail!

[DeadLetterOffice]

6. I'm confused.

The article above is from January, and is about the REINS Act passing in the House (which has happened before).
I can't find any information that says it passed in the Senate or got signed into law.

[onenote]

7. The senate hasn't acted

The last activity were hearings held at the end of March.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I found something from May - Rand Paul (it would be him, wouldn't it)

Apologies for the source, but I can only find RW sites that covered it:

---snip---
A Senate committee vote on Wednesday is a new high water mark for a long-sought-after regulatory reform proposal. Further progress, though, might be unlikely.

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the REINS Act (the acronym stands for "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny&quot , sending the bill to the Senate floor for the first time. While the REINS Act has cleared the House several times in recent years—most recently in January—this is the first time the proposal has been approved by a vote of any kind in the Senate.

Sponsored by Sen. Ran Paul (R-Kentucky), the REINS Act would require every new regulation that costs more than $100 million to be approved by Congress. As it is now, executive branch agencies can pass those rules unilaterally, and even though those major rules account for only 3 percent of annual regulations, they are the ones that cause the most headaches for individuals and businesses.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/17/rand-pauls-reins-act-finally-makes-it-to

[onenote]

36. Thanks. There actually are two bills

The bill that passed the House was HR 26. The Rand Paul bill in the Senate is S 21. I don't know if they are identical. Depending on the procedure used the Rand Paul bill, if passed by the Senate, might have to go back to the House. But it is likely a moot point because the Democrats in the Senate will prevent cloture.

[red dog 1]

8. Kick for exposure!

I hope Eddie Munster is indicted soon.

[TheDebbieDee]

9. Consider action? What possible action can we take, THAT'S LEGAL, that will do any good!

[onenote]

18. We can oppose senate psssage

Can't do much else since it isn't law yet.

[retrowire]

10. Republicans all about dat small federal guvmint.

SARCASM LMAO

[BlancheSplanchnik]

45. Yep. Oh, we wimmins knew all about dat from waaaaaaaaay back

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. How would Congress have time to approve regulations

They can't seem to get much done as is. I'm sure that's part of the point but still. If this monstrosity people will get to re-live a society with few regulations- and they won't like it.

[Kaleva]

13. This happened back in January. Senate seems to have done nothing with it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. It got through a Senate committee in May - see #32 (nt)

[G_j]

14. Kick

the hits keep coming..

[kristopher]

15. It wouldn't stand up to judicial challenge.

[onenote]

19. Why do you think that?

Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

There is no basis for challenging it.

[BzaDem]

27. There could be no credible judicial challenge to the law.

Congress can certainly repeal all regulatory authority it previously delegated to the executive. This bill effectively does that, for certain types of regulations. It would be an absolute disaster, but a perfectly legal one.

[kristopher]

31. They aren't "repealing regulatory authority" they are supplanting administrative authority.

They are attempting supplant the executive's prerogative to administer the government. They have no legislative authority over-ride the executive's role in decision making once the laws have been enacted. It isn't like the use of military force or the confirmation process where the role of Congress is to provide a specific check an an administrations judgement.
I believe that to interfere they'd have to go through the legislative process for each instance where they want to insert themselves.
If they attempt to do it as a matter of restructuring the division of responsibility, I'm of the opinion they'd need to get such a restructuring written into the Constitution.

Turn the situation it on it's head and have a President attempt to rewrite the rules of the Senate and see how far that gets.

[BzaDem]

35. That is simply not accurate.

For regulations that bind private parties, it is entirely up to Congress to decide how much lattitude to give to the executive to write regulations. Some laws delegate a lot authority to the executive. (Dodd Frank and Obamacare come to mind, where many sections involve "the Secretary shall" provisions, but there are countless others.) Other laws are more specific, and delegate less authority to the executive. Even within a single law, some sections are very specific (spelling out the rules within the law itself), and some sections are much more ambiguous (specifically delegating the authority to write rules to the executive).

In any less specific piece of legislation that grants discretion to the executive, they could have chosen to withhold that discretion (and vice versa). There is simply no rule that requires Congress to be less specific (granting more discretion to the executive) in some cases and not others. It is entirely up the Congress.

This law essentially revokes discretion en masse, essentially rewriting thousands of pieces of legislation to grant less discretion to begin with. No one could credibly challenge a decision to grant less discretion to begin with in any given law, and there is no reason Congress can't do en masse what it clearly can do law by law.

There are a few areas where the Constitution specifically grants authority to the executive. For example, if Congress passed a law requiring a particular ship or commander to be sent to a particular theater of war, that would likely be struck down as impinging on the President's authority to direct war as commander in chief. The President gets his commander in chief power directly from the Constitution -- not from any law. That would be more analogous to your example of the President attempting to write Senate rules -- the Senate has inherent authority to decide on its own rules. (That's also written directly into the Constitution.)

But this proposed bill doesn't attempt to remove rulemaking authority from the President for areas in which he has inherent authority. It only affects regulations issued under authority delegated from Congress -- authority that the President would not have to begin with in the absence of a law. (It also avoids legislative veto problems, by simply repealing regulatory authority outright, rather than conditioning such repeal on possible future action of one house.)

I understand the instinct behind your argument. This would be deeply destructive if passed into law. I have been following laws like this for awhile. But this bill was designed to avoid separation of powers problems, and it looks like they have succeeded in that regard. Fortunately, it does not look like it will pass the Senate.

[onenote]

37. Exactly right

[kristopher]

39. My understanding is consistent with that

But my thinking on this point is different than your own:
"here is no reason Congress can't do en masse what it clearly can do law by law"

Law by law oversight is not the same as attempting to usurp the role of the administration. The damage to the institutional framework from legislators using such a tactic to generically hobble the executive would give room for courts to maneuver. If they wanted to take action (admittedly a big if) they'd certainly have at least as much leeway for action as they had in Bush V Gore. Where they'd hang their hat may not be predictable, but their ability to step in if they think it is necessary does exist.

[Nevernose]

16. But CNN has everyone watching wrestling reruns

Fuck Trump and fuck his twitter feed. The GOP is still framing the narrative and we are happily letting them do it.

[Ligyron]

17. K and R

[smirkymonkey]

20. K&R for exposure

[chowder66]

21. Seems like the reason for a nationwide strike to me. nt

[calimary]

24. Welcome to DU, tasmaniac.

I can't imagine how big the mess is that the next President will have to clean up.

The deplorables sent Captain Chaos into the job with his friendly wrecking crew. He can't be impeached soon enough. But this jerk needs to be impeached AND removed. Unfortunately we're up a creek even after that. Pence will still be around, and will ascend to his dream job.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Does the Senate have to approve that? nt

[Honeycombe8]

26. This is part of the payola.The reason they put up with Trump and even welcome his madness.

Money. Golden coins. The tax cuts, no regulations, no health care program, and hopefully no entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

If they can't wipe them out totally right now, they will injure them to the point that they will wither on the vine, as Newt Gingrich said in the 90s about Medicare.

And they won't stop with this. Social Security and Medicare are front and center. Trump lied about EVERYTHING.

Any voter checking his history, prior statements, books he wrote, would have seen that Trump was/is in favor of Social Security IN PRIVATIZED FORM. Which is neither social nor secure.

So when Trump said he'll "protect" Social Security, what he meant was that he'll protect it, in his opinion, by privatizing it.

Sounds like something the evil man in a horror movie would say. Girl says, "But dr., I thought you said you'd make me better!" Evil doctor responds, "Why, yes, my girl. I AM going to make you better. By cutting off your legs, so you don't have to worry about that limp anymore. Bwahahahaha."

[BzaDem]

28. This would be an absolute disaster for our system of government if it passed the Senate.

But it would certainly need 60 votes to pass that body (unless they chuck the filibuster).

[burrowowl]

29. I think the Republic is seriously FUCKED!

RESIST!

[MaeScott]

38. Kicked.

[onenote]

40. Before everyone loses their collective shit over this

consider the following:
The REINS act has been introduced in and passed the House four times over the past six years and so far it has never even gotten to a vote in the Senate. And that is almost certainly the situation this time.

Yes it's a bad bill, but there are far more pressing concerns than this four-time loser.

[dlk]

41. Republicans Don't Believe in Democracy - They Prefer a Corporate Autocracy

This latest action by House Republicans demonstrates their enthusiastic eagerness to push our country further into a corporate autocracy. At what point does our democracy die?

[Heartstrings]

42. Way to go tazmaniac! K & R

Excellent post!

[gtar100]

43. What's the big deal. If one brand of cleaner causes you cancer, just buy another.

Same for food that makes you sick or kills your loved one, just stop buying that brand. The company will get the message and do better next time.

And all those under-paid workers should just go get a better paying job with benefits, during their free time of course.

Unregulated capitalism and all that... you know the rest of the story.

[Shoonra]

44. Not yet passed the Senate.

The House version (HR 26) passed the House, but the Senate version (S 21, authored by Rand Paul) has not yet passed the Senate. I have serious doubts about its constitutionality.
In some ways it resembles the Tenure of Office Act that was used to impeach Andrew Johnson.
It enables the Legislative branch to interfere with the internal workings of the Executive branch, a serious breach of the separation of powers as well as a very improvident micromanaging by Congress. I would think that the President, as head of the Executive branch, would have sufficient clout to stop ill-advised regulations.

[onenote]

46. This is not at all similar to the Tenure of Office Act

The Tenure of Office Act involved the power of the president, who is granted the power under the Constitution to name the heads of executive agencies, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to remove those officers without Senate approval.

However, the power of an executive agency to adopt legislative rules does not emanate from the Constitution the way the president's power to appoint the heads of such agencies. It emanates entirely from Congress. A good explanation of the relationship between federal agencies (not just executive branch agencies but independent agencies such as the FCC) can be found in post # 35.

[SunSeeker]

47. K & R for exposure.

[Atticus]

48. Just FAXed both my senators. nt.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Aka "Congressional Fund Raiser". Any threat, no matter how terrible

would become an opportunity for Congress to takes millions in Citizens United money during the 70 days.

Say the FDA tries to ban food contaminated with a carcinogen that is imported from China. China would have 70 days to grease the palms of Congressmen (Citizens United allows even foreign corporation to give bribes) In the end, the carcinogen contaminated food would still be banned. But the Tea Party would have yet another opportunity to make a quick buck.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. Does this apply to any Trump executive decision, too? That makes is a Trump extortion racket.

Even more opportunities for Congress to get bribe money. Indeed, I can foresee the WH issuing executive orders just to encourage various companies to give to Congress.

This law won't stand up to court action--however if it is a scheme between Trump and the GOP to extort money, the Trump DOJ will not challenge it.