Fate

They have to be tethered to actual law

You might want to re read the first paragraph of the wiki you linked.

The law that the various agencies are "tethered" to is the enabling legislation. Written by congress.
So you complain that the agencies are acting and taking the authority of congress, and yet thats what Congress has written in the enabling legislation...
What remedies exist for those opposed to regulation by agencies? There are many.
1) lobby the agency .... think corporations and members of congress aren't engaged in that continuously.
2) amend the enabling legislation. Of course that's difficult to do without majorities in both houses . And in the case of an executive that opposes the legislation a veto proof majority.
3) Take the agency to court. This seems to be a remedy that is attempted any number of times. The problem is that very often the enabling legislation (see the incredibly competent congress that you think is the answer) is so vague that the courts and the procedures they have to follow are convoluted and resolution is rarely achieved. (Although the chevron Doctrine did entrench the power of agencies to write rules and regulations that had the same effect as law.)

I don't disagree with you Fate that the system is screwy. I probably disagree with you that a minority should be able to stop or defang the agencies. And I certainly disagree with you if you want to defend a handful of invested corporations or individual stakeholders who use the courts to rerail the intent of the majority.
But don't complain that this is unconstitutional. Its not. And don't complain that the system isn't working as designed. It is. Its just a lousy design.
And its why stuff don't get done.
This is due to the over ranking fetish for checks and balances. Where there are fewer checks and balances stuff can get done. In other democracies a majority has the ability to get stuff done without too much difficulty. In authoritarian regimes like China, they get anything they set their minds to, done. (Although that's not something that we should admire.Only recognize)
The balance between individual liberties and respect for minority rights and views is out of balance in the US system today. Politicians and corporations have used the great many levers given to them to game the system to their advantage.... And you can't expect that one President can actually change this... Or a congress that doesn't have a veto proof majority...
Its whats fueled the out rage that demagogues like Trump and Carson are feeding off of.... But its a misplaced outrage.
Just as your complaints about the EPA are both misplaced and misinformed.

rickyp wrote:Fate

They have to be tethered to actual law

You might want to re read the first paragraph of the wiki you linked.

The law that the various agencies are "tethered" to is the enabling legislation. Written by congress.
So you complain that the agencies are acting and taking the authority of congress, and yet thats what Congress has written in the enabling legislation...
What remedies exist for those opposed to regulation by agencies? There are many.
1) lobby the agency .... think corporations and members of congress aren't engaged in that continuously.
2) amend the enabling legislation. Of course that's difficult to do without majorities in both houses . And in the case of an executive that opposes the legislation a veto proof majority.
3) Take the agency to court. This seems to be a remedy that is attempted any number of times. The problem is that very often the enabling legislation (see the incredibly competent congress that you think is the answer) is so vague that the courts and the procedures they have to follow are convoluted and resolution is rarely achieved. (Although the chevron Doctrine did entrench the power of agencies to write rules and regulations that had the same effect as law.)

I don't disagree with you Fate that the system is screwy. I probably disagree with you that a minority should be able to stop or defang the agencies. And I certainly disagree with you if you want to defend a handful of invested corporations or individual stakeholders who use the courts to rerail the intent of the majority.
But don't complain that this is unconstitutional. Its not. And don't complain that the system isn't working as designed. It is. Its just a lousy design.
And its why stuff don't get done.
This is due to the over ranking fetish for checks and balances. Where there are fewer checks and balances stuff can get done. In other democracies a majority has the ability to get stuff done without too much difficulty. In authoritarian regimes like China, they get anything they set their minds to, done. (Although that's not something that we should admire.Only recognize)
The balance between individual liberties and respect for minority rights and views is out of balance in the US system today. Politicians and corporations have used the great many levers given to them to game the system to their advantage.... And you can't expect that one President can actually change this... Or a congress that doesn't have a veto proof majority...
Its whats fueled the out rage that demagogues like Trump and Carson are feeding off of.... But its a misplaced outrage.
Just as your complaints about the EPA are both misplaced and misinformed.

No facts in your posts, just lots of personal slights and that's not particularly well done.

The best way to change laws you disagree with (if you are in power) is to enforce them to the letter. The people will demand change. However, when you willfully ignore SOME laws, why would you expect the people to respect the law? The government is teaching us the law is subjective!

OK, OK, I understand that point. It could have been done better. But it is unlikely Congress would have legislated to define marriage, or passed some sort of legislation outlawing discrimination against gays to get a marriage license. That's typically when officials do trample the constitution. They cannot get their way, and they believe that their way is a just one, so they'll achieve it through whatever means possible. Believe me Fate I'm not trying to make a value judgment here, but I'm saying circumscribing or limiting the court's power to interpret the constitution will not be very easy or, at this stage, very feasible.

And by your logic, wasn't that county clerk exceeding her own authority?

How would you put such limits into legal language, Fate?

And yes, Ricky, we've heard your arguments against Presidential democracy before. I am sorry we're so screwed up, but you guys probably do not want to admit how you think alike sometimes. You argue even when you are on the same side (in certain ways if not literally).

hacker

And yes, Ricky, we've heard your arguments against Presidential democracy before

Its not an argument. Its an opportunity to illustrate of how the system actually works. Well, wrong word. Grinds would be a better term.

rickyp wrote:hacker

And yes, Ricky, we've heard your arguments against Presidential democracy before

Its not an argument. Its an opportunity to illustrate of how the system actually works. Well, wrong word. Grinds would be a better term.

Yes, yes, we've also heard from you that the judicial branch is the "fourth branch of government."

#notaconstitutionalexpert

#ihatethishashtagbull****andwhyisitnotcalledaf******poundsign?

Anyway:...

Is there a page where I can read some (or all) of the write-up from the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage? I've started to come around to your way of thinking on this, not entirely perhaps (I was never from the start taking an actual constitutional position on the actual decision itself just on "limiting" the supreme Court). Perhaps this was indeed a quick and dirty victory that isn't lasting and will only create a constitutional rallying-cry for conservatives, such as your dear self, to fight it. And, perhaps, set the stage for a future Supreme Court battle we [gays] might lose this time.

But at any rate, Ricky, the American People will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see their Congress replaced with a Parliament. Canadians would sooner see their capital moved from Ottawa to Washington, than Americans would allow their Congress to become a Parliament. Get it?

#hesrightyourefarfromaconstitutionalexpert

JimHackerMP wrote:Is there a page where I can read some (or all) of the write-up from the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage?

If you mean the decision itself, it's right here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/ ... index.html

If you had something else in mind, it wasn't clear to me.

I've started to come around to your way of thinking on this, not entirely perhaps (I was never from the start taking an actual constitutional position on the actual decision itself just on "limiting" the supreme Court). Perhaps this was indeed a quick and dirty victory that isn't lasting and will only create a constitutional rallying-cry for conservatives, such as your dear self, to fight it.

I genuinely appreciate your thinking about this.

I always have two responses to laws and/or decisions--one as an American who values limited government, and the other as a Christian whose morality is not dictated by the laws of the land. It is legal to engage in adultery, fornication, etc. It is legal to get drunk. It is legal to lie. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are limitations on some of these (you can't get drunk and act the fool in public, for example). Even so what the State says is okay may not be "okay" biblically.

As an American, I hate the decision for the reasons I've listed. That has nothing to do with my reasons as a Christian. I do fear the creep of federalism because it is precisely that which we fought the Revolution over. I like what I heard the other day: the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the government, not to empower the government.

Doctor Fate wrote: I like what I heard the other day: the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the government, not to empower the government.

This is what I see as the biggest threat to liberty today. Most leftists view the Constitution not as a limitations of governmental powers, but rather as a granting of personal rights.

To me, this is dangerous thinking because what government grants, it can take away. All it needs is enough people to agree the right should be taken away.

I disagree that this is the central divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives want to limit the owner of government (theoretically but of course they tend to be blind to the dangers of too much military power, police power and power based on security grounds) but are blind to forces within society (corporations, wealthy, Wall Street) that are using their power to take more and more of society's wealth. Liberals are more willing to use governmental power to constrain these bad actors. As to individual rights , I guess you're talking about the right of privacy. I don't know any liberal who thinks the right of privacy is granted by the government. The right of privacy is a limitation on the power of government to infringe on the individual in certain very private matters (contraception, procreation, marriage, abortion rights ). This is protected by the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment (other justifications include the 9th Amendment)

By the way back in the 1920s, The Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public school (this would have ended parochial schools and,yes, homeschooling) based on the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment.

Without government there is no wealth. A government with too much power means wealth is at the whim of the government. We are devolving into a society where a few doing little. (at least in relation to what they are getting) get vast amounts of wealth. This is dangerous to the stability of society on many levels. First, a broad tax case is necessary to support public infrastructure; a narrow tax base will not be willing to pay high taxes for public infrastructure that mostly benefits others. Unless wages broadly grow we're going to have problems funding Social Security and Medicare--will have fewer workers paying for more recipients because of the large baby boomer cohort which means rates will have to go up and that is going to create a lot bitterness and opposition unless wages go up. There is patent unfairness with some becoming very rich on investments or investing money or working in high level management while most US workers being ever more productive but they are seeing their wages stay stagnant, they don't have pensions because corporations don't want to pay for them, they work as hard or harder than ever before, their retirement looks iffy, and education costs for their kids are going through the roof. Either we raise wages in a broad- based way so that society's wealth does not mostly go to the few or eventually society is going to fissure.

Liberals would like to use government to constrain a few private actors from taking too much of society's wealth and causing an eventual social upheaval. (I really can't imagine what would have happened if McCain had been elected in 2008). Conservatives seem to care about having guns so that they defend themselves against a government with too much power that is going to take away their property...except the government is doing nothing about wealth stratification under Obama and the Dow has gone from like 6,000 to 16,000 under Obama. Oh and they care about the right to do their business /job and not provide services to people when their religion says it wrong. Ok. And they seem awfully concerned about illegal immigration that will for almost all of them will make no difference in their lives. Makes sense. Actually, legal immigration in the form of granting visas to computer programmers from India who come here and get paid a lot less money and oust higher- paid American workers could effect them if they work in the computer industry. Not a peep about that, though...

Actually, the economic pressures on people are probably helping to help fuel divisions among people based on non-economic reasons (whether native vs non-native, racial, religious). And Republican candidates pander to that.

hacker

But at any rate, Ricky, the American People will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see their Congress replaced with a Parliament. Canadians would sooner see their capital moved from Ottawa to Washington, than Americans would allow their Congress to become a Parliament. Get it

?
It has never been the point of the discussion to suggest that Americans would change their system.
All I've done is illustrate that the system isn't working very well to benefit the middle classes and working classes today.
At one time, it did. Especially from 1890 or so to WWII. And then especially well between 1945 and 1980. (A period when socialist programs provided much of the impetus for this....)
That's when the American middle class grew both in size and wealth the most. What Freeman illustrates in his comment is also the failure of the system to sustain that success for the middle class. It was in this period that the system was responsive to the needs of the working and middle classes...
Political systems all have advantages and failings. For a long period of time expanding liberties and expanding government involvement benefited the American middle class.
Now, when corporations are considered to be people, and everything law and regulation written is first "lobby formed " and then litigated for years, ... the system is being gamed. Its enormous complexity makes it easy to game. Its enormous complexity and the inability of Americans to recognize also contribute towards camouflaging the gaming of the system. To an extent.
There does seem to be an understanding by more and more that this is the case. When even republican candidates admit that the middle class gets screwed (but offer few solutions). there may be some change.
But, no, it won't be fundamental.
Even if Sanders wins ... Although a win by him would demonstrate an enormous realization.

It has never been the point of the discussion to suggest that Americans would change their system.

Then why the HELL are you constantly insisting to Americans how much better off we'd be with a parliamentary system than a presidential one? Isn't that being a bit of a Cassandra of the worst kind? Believe it or not Ricky, I have actually listened to you before even if I don't agree. But you just made the admission that you're talking to hear yourself talk, don't you think?

All I've done is illustrate that the system isn't working very well to benefit the middle classes and working classes today.
At one time, it did. Especially from 1890 or so to WWII. And then especially well between 1945 and 1980. (A period when socialist programs provided much of the impetus for this....)

1890? Are you sure about 1890 as the proper demarcation for that? They called it the gilded age for a reason.

It was in this period that the system was responsive to the needs of the working and middle classes...

Incorrect.

Political systems all have advantages and failings.

A point I have been attempting to get across to you quite often.

Most leftists view the Constitution not as a limitations of governmental powers, but rather as a granting of personal rights.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I have friends on both sides of the spectrum, and some seem to work like that, some don't. It does not depend on their position on the political spectrum (left, right), which isn't always the best way to see things all the time anyway.

BTW Ricky, are you really under the impression that what you're describing is pretty much a recent development?

hacker

Then why the HELL are you constantly insisting to Americans how much better off we'd be with a parliamentary system than a presidential one?

I've pointed out that most western parliamentary systems have been more responsive to the needs of their middle class, and have managed to actually govern more effectively. (Not all. Some have structural problems that the parliamentary system simply exacerbates. Like Greece and Italy.) If you've concluded that Americans would be better off with what I've demonstrated is a more responsive and effective system of governance that's your conclusion. But that would depend on your point of view. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to argue that the US system is more responsive and effective than the parliamentary systems .... then you have to explain the pickle that even Republican politicians are now granting exists. (And they are pretty good at ignoring reality.)
If I were a American CEO I wouldn't be in a hurry to change the system in any way. Its working really well for that section of society the last 30 years.


hacker

BTW Ricky, are you really under the impression that what you're describing is pretty much a recent development?

Yes. Since the 1980's. Which is what I said...
Changes to the US system in the decades before the 1980s occurred that exacerbated many of the structural problems. The primary system, for instance, which has proven to make certain areas of the country more important politically than they deserve, and which has made the impassioned fanatical fringes of the duopoly more important as they are more likely to engage in primary politics.
Then there's the politicizing of the news media. And the increased partisanship in Congress...
And more....
But, its working really well for the 1%.
So I don;t expect it will change.

Hacker

1890? Are you sure about 1890 as the proper demarcation for that? They called it the gilded age for a reason

I don;t think there are clear "demarcations" . The Gilded Age was generally considered to be 1870 to 1900. But by 1890 the forces that ended the Gilded Age , the growing strength of labor unions, the religious awakening and increasing use of the voting franchise by new Americans and the working poor ...were beginning to take hold so I said 1890.
If you want to say that 1900 was a "demarcation" for significant growth of the middle class... I wouldn't complain. I take it you don't disagree that post WWII was the greatest growth in this part of the economic spectrum, both in average wealth and in numbers in the sector?
And that 1980 marked the high water mark for both?

I don't know Ricky, I am not an expert here, nor am I an economist, but it sounds like a lot of half-truths and uncertainties to me (not just "sounds like" but from stuff I actually *know* so far; my knowledge is just not 100% complete, understand...). Certainly you are right in some respects about World War II: an unprecedented economic growth. But that was from the economy being organized for war production in a way that was never imaginable before.

Is there an economist in the house? (lol....)

(And they are pretty good at ignoring reality.)

Just the Republicans huh?