Boehner Gets Specific On His Plans To Halt Federal Regulation

Wow, what a remarkable about-face from the party that brought us the "Unitary Executive", huh? I wonder what might have made them think the person in the WH might need scrutiny...

This is so clearly unconstitutional that even Boner knows it. Once a bill is signed by the President and becomes law Congress no role in its implementation. If they funded it then the President (executive branch) has all the power it needs via the Constitution to spend the money for the purposes stated in the law. Unless Boner and the GOP have their own version of the Constitution, that is.

It will amusing to see all the "unitary executive" practitioners in the GOP tie themselves in logical knots trying to explain how the executive branch of the government is now somehow beholden to Congress. Amusing, that it, if it weren't so damned hypocritical.

Yes...If you get at least 50% of your profits from screwing people..screwing your customers, your employees, your investors, others in the community...I can see how regulations can effect your bottom line.

C

Why is it that I think that they came up with the acronym first and that the contents of the proposed bill were an afterthought?

While I'd hardly consider myself a fan of the concept of a Unitary Executive, like drv says this is clearly an attempt by Republican congressmen to insert itself into an area clearly reserved for the Executive branch.

Why is it every time the government forces a business to be responsible, such as making an electric company clean up it's toxic ash pits, the GOP calls it a tax on hard working Americans.

If so, why wouldn't the GOP also consider the cost of the electric company's CEO's hookers, trips to Vegas, annual company picnic and Christmas party for all it's employees also be considered a tax on us hard working American?

It's stupid and unconstitutional. The Congress already has oversight and the House holds the purse strings.
I want to see some real governing. Come back with an idea and lets use the process to create some law, but no, it's a constant barrage of nonsensical moves. Except, are they really nonsensical at all?
The underlining cause is class.
They, the Republicans of today, want an Oligarchic Republic based on Social Darwinism and financed by brigand capitalism.
What else could explain these types of moves?

This sounds like a ridiculously unthought-out piece of moral-vomit. Moralizing on government spending is one thing, but attempting to make government spending even more a part of Congressional politics is absurd. Public funding, social security, and military safety equipment may grind to a halt on red tape. I'm not sure how many repuglican'ts want more bureaucracy in Washington, but it sounds awful over here.

Right. How about: Republicans Engage In Nonsensical Strategies.

Deep breath everyone: this is a bill. It has to pass both houses, including cloture vote(s) in the Senate, and Obama's veto pen. Obviously, if it got as far as the veto pen, it'd be unpleasant politics, but this thing is never going to be a law. (And, as someone pointed out earlier, it unconstitutional.)

Laws Onlycount When By Andfor Republicans (Low-Bar)

Best I could do.

If we are stupid enough to let the Rethugs take control of the House, we deserve what we get.

There is a constitutional way for Congress to do this. Pass a law that amends every other statute to strip executive agencies of any authority to make "economically significant regulations." Of course, that would leave it to Congress to try and forecast every such situation before passing a law in order to address it in the legislation, and create huge problems every time they failed to forsee an issue, and essentially cripple the modern administrative state as it has operated for 100 years or so, but it would be legal.

The actual proposal here is just lazy, seeing as how it seeks to block proposed executive action after already having delegated the power to act to the executive branch. For that reason this would likely wind up (as applied) amounting to a one-house "legislative veto", something the Supreme Court ruled was unConstitutional in INS v. Chadha, a decision hailed by Republicans at the time as a victory for narrow construction of the Constitution. Of course, that was 1983, so constraints on Presidential power were clearly unneccessary back then (snark).

It's all about race. Coming soon. The NEGRO Act-Nuke Effort Gains to Republican Opposition Act

Just let Joe Biden promulgate the regulations. He's not in the executive branch, right John?

Ah, Geoff, my chinless congress critter has been a wanna-be in waiting for forever, always the bridesmaid to Jean Schmidt's C-List bride.
Still waiting for him to detail his "serious reservations" about DADT after only 3 or 4 requests as a resident of the 4th district and from a local family with 5 generations of military service...I mean, after all, Geoff volunteered that he had these "reservations" and that "top military generals" also shared these "reservations". I just wanted to know exactly what they were or are...whatever.
Still waiting Geoff like I'm still waiting for exactly why you thought Davis-Bacon, after Katrina, was just "outdated, Depression-era law".

He's flaunting and taunting hist stuff trying to get the corporations to buy him the Speaker of the House gig. Why does this make me think he of the word whore?

The Boner forgot to say that he was going to kick his feet and hold his breath until he turns blue . . .