HAHAHAHA
I just saw this story. The two funniest parts are the beginning and end:
Which is, of course, how it should be in a representative democracy. It is entirely unreasonable for any regulation of the American people to move forward without either our elected representatives, or appointees of such, approving it. It does not matter what that regulation is. That is the nature of representative democracy.
The "Union of Concerned Scientists" says, "We have a corps of highly trained scientists in federal agencies. Why would we want to undermine their expertise and authority?" That's the wrong question. The proper question would be: "We have officers put in place by the American people to make decisions on their behalf. Why would we want to undermine their collective will?"
The final sentence of the story reads, Democrats called the order a "power grab." Wow that makes no sense at all. Note that the federal agencies in question are executive agencies. So the Executive is grabbing power from ... the Executive. Let us read, together, the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
I don't always agree with Bush on Constitutional matters, of course. I disagreed with him on that warrantless wiretapping deal (which he later dropped), and I disagreed with him on the citizen-enemy combatant deal (which was struck down by the Supreme Court), and I disagree with him on Miers refusing to be subject to a subpoena (which is still pending). But when Democrats say Bush ignores the Constitution, and then say that Bush doesn't, or shouldn't, have the authority the Constitution explicitly grants him ... it makes them look like fools, hypocrites, or worse. And it makes me ignore them.
Executive Order 13422, going into effect today ... gives political appointees final say regarding science-based federal agency regulations.
Which is, of course, how it should be in a representative democracy. It is entirely unreasonable for any regulation of the American people to move forward without either our elected representatives, or appointees of such, approving it. It does not matter what that regulation is. That is the nature of representative democracy.
The "Union of Concerned Scientists" says, "We have a corps of highly trained scientists in federal agencies. Why would we want to undermine their expertise and authority?" That's the wrong question. The proper question would be: "We have officers put in place by the American people to make decisions on their behalf. Why would we want to undermine their collective will?"
The final sentence of the story reads, Democrats called the order a "power grab." Wow that makes no sense at all. Note that the federal agencies in question are executive agencies. So the Executive is grabbing power from ... the Executive. Let us read, together, the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
I don't always agree with Bush on Constitutional matters, of course. I disagreed with him on that warrantless wiretapping deal (which he later dropped), and I disagreed with him on the citizen-enemy combatant deal (which was struck down by the Supreme Court), and I disagree with him on Miers refusing to be subject to a subpoena (which is still pending). But when Democrats say Bush ignores the Constitution, and then say that Bush doesn't, or shouldn't, have the authority the Constitution explicitly grants him ... it makes them look like fools, hypocrites, or worse. And it makes me ignore them.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment