Obama's Lawless Bureaucracy Now Trying To Deliver an Unconstitutional Advantage to Big Labor

ace

Another issue at stake in this election is the rule of law- it is breaking down.

Obama's new rule, then, has a main intent of denying important, decision-affecting information to workers.

It's also unconstitutional for a federal bureaucracy to make new law. [emphasis added]

Question:  What prevents a President from assuming dictatorial powers?  If the Congress is split politically, as it now is, there is no remedy through impeachment.  Without that as a threat, a President could do whatever he wanted.  A case in point- Bill Clinton committed perjury, but was not removed from office.  This gave a wayward President a green light to lawlessness.   He got away with breaking the law and there were no consequences.  That precedent could lead to disastrous outcomes if it is not reversed, and accountability restored.  But how?

This was challenged as far as constitutionality. Congress cannot delegate a power to the executive that the Constitution says lies with -- and must lie with -- Congress itself.

But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.

Congress has delegated too much authority to the executive and the Supreme Court has ratified it.  This has not been an overnight occurrence.  It has taken many years and many missteps to get to the point.  There is the threat of no more "checks and balances".

What about voters?  Well, too many don't pay attention and don't care.  Those who do may only care about narrow concerns.  But the rule of law affects everybody.

Now, even though Congress may vote on a joint resolution to block this-- and this cannot be filibustered in the Senate -- it still requires The President's signature to block the rule:

So the President can assume authority when he wants, and the President can block laws with vetoes.  So, even if the Congress tries to exert itself and its own authority, the President can block it.  The Supreme Court?  If it gets packed, as FDR tried to do, they will just be a rubber stamp.

One line of attack removes power from the nation at large to Washington DC; the second line of attack removes power even from the elected tribunals from the country and pushes it into the hands of bureaucrats who answer only to the Executive (if they answer to anyone at all).

This must not stand. Because if it stands, the American Experiment will not.

Voters may not have much of an opportunity left to stop this.  We still have the right to vote.  But that is meaningless if it isn't exercised.  Moreover, there are overarching concerns, like this one, that should override any narrow interest.  For if the Constitution is overthrown, what is left?