PDA

View Full Version : The Reins Act - Learn about it



Starbuck
09-29-2011, 10:56 PM
Proposed legislation:

In adherence to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 1 .  .  . “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” All rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local government financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective.


Presently there are nearly 70 unelected government entities which take it upon themselves to pass rules that directly affect you and me. And it is not legal. Tolerated for years, yes, but NOT LEGAL.

The REINS Act seeks to stop all of that by making all these entities submit their rules to Congress. You can imagine the howling from the heads of EPA and others.

I am encouraging everyone at the Conservative Underground to learn about this piece of legislation and contact their representatives to voice support.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/regulation-nation_593656.html?page=1

AmPat
09-30-2011, 12:58 PM
I'm in!

marv
09-30-2011, 01:05 PM
IIRC, George Washington was the first to use Executive Orders. But FDR elevated it to an art.

fettpett
09-30-2011, 07:31 PM
IIRC, George Washington was the first to use Executive Orders. But FDR elevated it to an art.

not to mention Carter....:pig::pig:

Apache
09-30-2011, 09:56 PM
not to mention Carter....:pig::pig:

WHAT!?

You forget about Zero?:confused:

Starbuck
10-01-2011, 12:05 AM
In his first two years, FDR formed up 65! new departments. I won't bother to look them up; I think there will be little surprise if any of them are out of business.

These unapproved (by congress) and unfunded regulations are a major problem for every American. It is why there is a brake required on your lawnmower blade, a 'child detector'' on your garage door, and expensive add-ons to your phone bill and mortgage costs.

If we can get rid of these unapproved regulations we would go a long way toward establishing a sane America - the one we all thought we would live in.

Nothing wrong with regulations. A lot of them are good things and should be kept. But not all.

If you believe the REIN Act should become law, then write your representatives and try to get them on board. The vote may come up in the next couple of months.

djones520
10-01-2011, 06:28 AM
In his first two years, FDR formed up 65! new departments. I won't bother to look them up; I think there will be little surprise if any of them are out of business.

These unapproved (by congress) and unfunded regulations are a major problem for every American. It is why there is a brake required on your lawnmower blade, a 'child detector'' on your garage door, and expensive add-ons to your phone bill and mortgage costs.

If we can get rid of these unapproved regulations we would go a long way toward establishing a sane America - the one we all thought we would live in.

Nothing wrong with regulations. A lot of them are good things and should be kept. But not all.

If you believe the REIN Act should become law, then write your representatives and try to get them on board. The vote may come up in the next couple of months.

I htink 65 departments might be a bit excessive. Offices and agencies under the departments undoubtedly.

fettpett
10-01-2011, 08:50 AM
WHAT!?

You forget about Zero?:confused:

Carter issued 919 Executive Orders, the Presidents SINCE have issued only 1297 (including Obama).

No President has issued more than 500 since FDR in a term (either 4 or 8 years)
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Starbuck
10-01-2011, 11:47 AM
I htink 65 departments might be a bit excessive. Offices and agencies under the departments undoubtedly.

Right. I should have said bureaucracies.

Starbuck
10-01-2011, 11:48 AM
Carter issued 919 Executive Orders, the Presidents SINCE have issued only 1297 (including Obama).

No President has issued more than 500 since FDR in a term (either 4 or 8 years)
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
Cain promises at least one - the one that would emasculate Obamacare.:)

djones520
10-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Right. I should have said bureaucracies.

And I know for certain that the Office of Censureship was one that was shut down. But I don't know about others.

Starbuck
10-01-2011, 12:13 PM
I also found this:

President Roosevelt greatly expanded the power............ He was the first president to submit legislation directly to Congress. When much of this was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, FDR reacted by bullying the Court with threats to pack it with New Deal supporters. Once the Court started upholding New Deal legislation, FDR used this green light to expand the office of the presidency well beyond its Constitutional bounds, shifting federal power from Congress and the Supreme Court to the executive branch in the process. Most presidents since FDR have sought to further expand the power of the office.
http://biggovernment.com/rmuny/2010/06/21/time-to-pull-in-the-reins-on-executive-power/

I gotta admit that I am learning a lot about the evolution of the Executive branch these days. It is not a pretty history. Perhaps we can roll it back a bit....:Taps4:

AmPat
10-01-2011, 12:31 PM
And I know for certain that the Office of Censureship was one that was shut down. But I don't know about others.

Its philosophical cousin, The Fairness Doctrine, still breathes. Expect liberals to rename and eventually push this liberal idea back into our faces.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 08:12 PM
Executive Orders are an implied power under the overarching authority of "executive power" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, in order to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Executive Orders are supposed to help direct the Executive Branch carry out its duties and provide guidance for the normal operations of Government. Unfortunately, that's not how they end up being used, especially since Roosevelt. From Wikipedia:


"Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

[edit]Criticisms

Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates.[5] Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.

Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was more recently criticised by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing US law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation." Executive Order 13233 was later revoked by President Obama.[6]

It is quite common for US Presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to promulgate administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process in the US Congress altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the US Constitution in a number of ways. US Presidents are quite aware that US congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important. In this regard, US Presidents have issued executive orders calling upon federal agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Energy (DOE), to amend administrative regulations where the political process of adopting new congressional legislation necessary to implement multilateral environmental regulatory treaty obligations a president wishes for the US to assume would prevent US ratification of/accession to that treaty."

fettpett
10-01-2011, 11:51 PM
Its philosophical cousin, The Fairness Doctrine, still breathes. Expect liberals to rename and eventually push this liberal idea back into our faces.

actually the FCC killed the Fairness Doctrine by removing it from the books about a month ago :an: