Reform Party leftists on rise
- Thread starter Bezdelnik
- Start date
- Status
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezdelnik:
Yes, David, they would be sued out of existence, but but you need some element of government in order to set up courts. That was my point.[/quote]
I see. That wasn't clear to me since I thought our focus was on unconstitutional actions by government, and not the legitimacy of government itself.
So, please note that I have not argued anywhere in this thread against the existence of government or of courts of law. (Nor would I, since good government is the best guarantor of citizen's rights.) My problem is with the unconstitutional actions of our government.
And I'm not saying Europeans are freer than we are because they can purchase drugs faster. I'm saying that the unconstitutional actions of an agency of our government -- the FDA -- are delaying our access to new drugs.
And the FDA is unconstitutional in that, on its own, it enacts regulations that restrict trade. That is supposed to be a function of Congress or the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for lawmaking by non-elected officials.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 16, 2000).]
Yes, David, they would be sued out of existence, but but you need some element of government in order to set up courts. That was my point.[/quote]
I see. That wasn't clear to me since I thought our focus was on unconstitutional actions by government, and not the legitimacy of government itself.
So, please note that I have not argued anywhere in this thread against the existence of government or of courts of law. (Nor would I, since good government is the best guarantor of citizen's rights.) My problem is with the unconstitutional actions of our government.
And I'm not saying Europeans are freer than we are because they can purchase drugs faster. I'm saying that the unconstitutional actions of an agency of our government -- the FDA -- are delaying our access to new drugs.
And the FDA is unconstitutional in that, on its own, it enacts regulations that restrict trade. That is supposed to be a function of Congress or the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for lawmaking by non-elected officials.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 16, 2000).]
Bezdelnik,
I can't believe that you are serious when you say this...
"Has any president in recent history been treated more harshly by the press than President Clinton? That's not a liberal bias."
If a Republican had done a tenth of what Clinton has done, he would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of Washington on a rail by the liberal press a long time ago. In fact, most liberals that I talk with these days, will openly admit that the press has a liberal bias. It is simply common knowledge among those who have studied the issue.
"Why do you say liberals are more prone to the field of communications than anyone else? I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning."
It is true. Communications is just a field that liberals find of interest, more so than conservatives. Conservatives tend to be more interested in business, engineering, finance, and so forth. In a recent poll of the nation's major press reporters, fully 90 percent of them admitted to voting Democratic most of the time.
Joe
I can't believe that you are serious when you say this...
"Has any president in recent history been treated more harshly by the press than President Clinton? That's not a liberal bias."
If a Republican had done a tenth of what Clinton has done, he would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of Washington on a rail by the liberal press a long time ago. In fact, most liberals that I talk with these days, will openly admit that the press has a liberal bias. It is simply common knowledge among those who have studied the issue.
"Why do you say liberals are more prone to the field of communications than anyone else? I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning."
It is true. Communications is just a field that liberals find of interest, more so than conservatives. Conservatives tend to be more interested in business, engineering, finance, and so forth. In a recent poll of the nation's major press reporters, fully 90 percent of them admitted to voting Democratic most of the time.
Joe
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
And the FDA is unconstitutional in that, on its own, it enacts regulations that restrict trade. That is supposed to be a function of Congress or the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for lawmaking by non-elected officials.[/quote]
FYI, here is what the FDA's homepage says they do: "FDA ensures that the food we eat is safe and wholesome, that the cosmetics we use won't harm us, and that medicines, medical devices, and radiation-emitting consumer products such as microwave ovens are safe and effective. FDA also oversees feed and drugs for pets and farm animals. Authorized by Congress to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and several other public health laws, the agency monitors the manufacture, import, transport, storage, and sale of $1 trillion worth of goods annually, at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 a person."
They're regulating by authority of Congress, but they aren't making any laws. What's unconstitutional about that?
And the FDA is unconstitutional in that, on its own, it enacts regulations that restrict trade. That is supposed to be a function of Congress or the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for lawmaking by non-elected officials.[/quote]
FYI, here is what the FDA's homepage says they do: "FDA ensures that the food we eat is safe and wholesome, that the cosmetics we use won't harm us, and that medicines, medical devices, and radiation-emitting consumer products such as microwave ovens are safe and effective. FDA also oversees feed and drugs for pets and farm animals. Authorized by Congress to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and several other public health laws, the agency monitors the manufacture, import, transport, storage, and sale of $1 trillion worth of goods annually, at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 a person."
They're regulating by authority of Congress, but they aren't making any laws. What's unconstitutional about that?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
If a Republican had done a tenth of what Clinton has done, he would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of Washington on a rail by the liberal press a long time ago. [/quote]
But that's just speculation.
Some of the press slant one way, some slant the other way. The Washington Post is more liberal, but The Washington Times is more conservative. The websites that Paul Revere cited above are certainly not slanted to the left!!!
If a Republican had done a tenth of what Clinton has done, he would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of Washington on a rail by the liberal press a long time ago. [/quote]
But that's just speculation.
Some of the press slant one way, some slant the other way. The Washington Post is more liberal, but The Washington Times is more conservative. The websites that Paul Revere cited above are certainly not slanted to the left!!!
Bezdelnik,
I'm not talking about any conservative websites, nor am I talking about talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy. Admittedly, those are conservative sources. THEY DO NOT CLAIM TO BE UNBIASED! They are only giving their opinions. Unlike the national news media, which claims to be fair and honest, but they consistently deliver the news with a liberal spin nevertheless. Like it or not, it is true.
ONE example of a conservative newspaper does not prove your point. At least you admit that the Washington Post has a liberal bias.
I think you like to debate just for the sake of it, even when you know you are wrong. Are you practicing for a debating team or something?
Joe
btw: Check out Brent Bozzell's "Accuracy In Media" website to see what I'm talking about.
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited March 16, 2000).]
I'm not talking about any conservative websites, nor am I talking about talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy. Admittedly, those are conservative sources. THEY DO NOT CLAIM TO BE UNBIASED! They are only giving their opinions. Unlike the national news media, which claims to be fair and honest, but they consistently deliver the news with a liberal spin nevertheless. Like it or not, it is true.
ONE example of a conservative newspaper does not prove your point. At least you admit that the Washington Post has a liberal bias.
I think you like to debate just for the sake of it, even when you know you are wrong. Are you practicing for a debating team or something?
Joe
btw: Check out Brent Bozzell's "Accuracy In Media" website to see what I'm talking about.
[This message has been edited by nralife (edited March 16, 2000).]
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Bezdelnik said about the FDA:
They're regulating by authority of Congress, but they aren't making any laws. What's unconstitutional about that?[/quote]
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the ability to bestow regulatory powers on any agency. Government agencies may be charged with _enforcing_ laws, but they can't make the laws up themselves. This was intended to ensure that laws were created only by officials who were accountable to voters.
And the FDA (along with other federal agencies like the FCC and the IRS) does make up laws by itself. A recent egregious example: In 1991, the FDA decreed that pharmaceutical companies could not inform physicians of new uses for drugs already on the market. It's legal for physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but the FDA decided on its own that it would not allow pharmaceutical companies to tell physicians about other possible uses for the already-legal drugs. And the FDA threatened drug companies that did so with a variety of steps including seizure, injunction, and prosecution.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 16, 2000).]
They're regulating by authority of Congress, but they aren't making any laws. What's unconstitutional about that?[/quote]
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the ability to bestow regulatory powers on any agency. Government agencies may be charged with _enforcing_ laws, but they can't make the laws up themselves. This was intended to ensure that laws were created only by officials who were accountable to voters.
And the FDA (along with other federal agencies like the FCC and the IRS) does make up laws by itself. A recent egregious example: In 1991, the FDA decreed that pharmaceutical companies could not inform physicians of new uses for drugs already on the market. It's legal for physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but the FDA decided on its own that it would not allow pharmaceutical companies to tell physicians about other possible uses for the already-legal drugs. And the FDA threatened drug companies that did so with a variety of steps including seizure, injunction, and prosecution.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 16, 2000).]
Nralife,
No I don't think I'm wrong. From where I sit on the political spectrum (much closer to the middle than you), the media does not appear to be biased. From where you sit, it may seem much different. So what if I like debating? Shouldn't gun owners who aren't extremists have a voice on this forum, too?
David,
I see your point, but I still think that is constitutional since our elected representatives in Congress gave the FDA, as a legitimate branch of our government, the authority to regulate the industry. Congress can't do all the research itself. It has to delegate. That's where the specialists come in. The FDA makes recommendations and Congress approves them -- perhaps in 1991 it was implicit approval?
You may feel that those who created and amend the Constitution have no right to delegate authority, but in my opinion that is fine and does not violate my constitutional rights as a freedom-loving American. That's my opinion and you are entitled to yours. If you don't like it, take it up with the Supreme Court, and they'll decide! Isn't that what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the checks and balances system? (Yes, I realize you can't do this directly, unless you are an "interested party," so you'll have to lobby the industry to take it up on your behalf.)
No I don't think I'm wrong. From where I sit on the political spectrum (much closer to the middle than you), the media does not appear to be biased. From where you sit, it may seem much different. So what if I like debating? Shouldn't gun owners who aren't extremists have a voice on this forum, too?
David,
I see your point, but I still think that is constitutional since our elected representatives in Congress gave the FDA, as a legitimate branch of our government, the authority to regulate the industry. Congress can't do all the research itself. It has to delegate. That's where the specialists come in. The FDA makes recommendations and Congress approves them -- perhaps in 1991 it was implicit approval?
You may feel that those who created and amend the Constitution have no right to delegate authority, but in my opinion that is fine and does not violate my constitutional rights as a freedom-loving American. That's my opinion and you are entitled to yours. If you don't like it, take it up with the Supreme Court, and they'll decide! Isn't that what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the checks and balances system? (Yes, I realize you can't do this directly, unless you are an "interested party," so you'll have to lobby the industry to take it up on your behalf.)
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezdelnik:
I see your point, but I still think that is constitutional since our elected representatives in Congress gave the FDA, as a legitimate branch of our government, the authority to regulate the industry.[/quote]
If it's Constitutional, point to the passage in the Constitution that says Congress can delegate lawmaking to an unelected body. This isn't about who does research, it's about who establishes the laws that the citizens of this country are supposed to obey.
I see your point, but I still think that is constitutional since our elected representatives in Congress gave the FDA, as a legitimate branch of our government, the authority to regulate the industry.[/quote]
If it's Constitutional, point to the passage in the Constitution that says Congress can delegate lawmaking to an unelected body. This isn't about who does research, it's about who establishes the laws that the citizens of this country are supposed to obey.
Cleancut,
Do you really want the socialists in control of America?
David,
Perhaps this is a disagreement over semantics? The way I see it "unconstitutional" means that something actually goes against the Constitution. But I think you are using the term more loosely. The way I see it, "unconstitutional" does not means it isn't in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not say that Congress can give the FDA the power to regulate harmful drugs, but it doesn't say that Congress can't do this, either. By my usage of the term, that does not constitute "unconstitutional" -- and I think the Supreme Court would agree -- that merely constitutes not being discussed by the Constitution. I would say it would only be unconstitutional if the Constitution expressly forbade it.
The city in which you live can regulate and even legislate, and that isn't in the Constitution, as far as I can tell(it just mentions states in Amendment X). That doesn't mean city regulations are unconstitutional, unless they are in direct conflict with other elements of the Constitution. Another example: The Constitution doesn't say much about criminal law, but we have an extensive criminal law code. Am I to infer from what you're saying, that you believe criminal law in "unconstitutional"?
The Founding Fathers were insightful men. They knew that they could not foresee change in the world, which is why they set up a flexible government with an elected Congress. It was this Congress, which was established by the Constitution, and which is constitutionally elected, which set up the FDA as a regulative organization.
If Congress had to approve new drugs itself, imagine how long it would take to get them onto the market!
Do you really want the socialists in control of America?
David,
Perhaps this is a disagreement over semantics? The way I see it "unconstitutional" means that something actually goes against the Constitution. But I think you are using the term more loosely. The way I see it, "unconstitutional" does not means it isn't in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not say that Congress can give the FDA the power to regulate harmful drugs, but it doesn't say that Congress can't do this, either. By my usage of the term, that does not constitute "unconstitutional" -- and I think the Supreme Court would agree -- that merely constitutes not being discussed by the Constitution. I would say it would only be unconstitutional if the Constitution expressly forbade it.
The city in which you live can regulate and even legislate, and that isn't in the Constitution, as far as I can tell(it just mentions states in Amendment X). That doesn't mean city regulations are unconstitutional, unless they are in direct conflict with other elements of the Constitution. Another example: The Constitution doesn't say much about criminal law, but we have an extensive criminal law code. Am I to infer from what you're saying, that you believe criminal law in "unconstitutional"?
The Founding Fathers were insightful men. They knew that they could not foresee change in the world, which is why they set up a flexible government with an elected Congress. It was this Congress, which was established by the Constitution, and which is constitutionally elected, which set up the FDA as a regulative organization.
If Congress had to approve new drugs itself, imagine how long it would take to get them onto the market!
Bezdelnik:
No civilized country is considered a great country without good socialist policies. Now, before anti-Marxists and patriots jump off the fence, let me make myself clear. Left and right are antiquated concepts. They ended when George Bush Sr. said we lived in a New World Order. Today, more than ever, these people need to reorient themselves to the New World Order; it's about new politics, different issues.
Basically, what's hurting America today is too much Capitalism. Bush offers in many respects the same thing as Gore, but far worse. You might keep your guns for a short while, but you won't have any Social Security, Medicare, retirement, environment, etc. Is that really worth it?
These are issues no great country gives up. Frankly, if you want to know the truth, I voted for Dukakis in '88. I thought he would do a good job for the domestic economy. Why is wanting affordable healthcare such a sin? I think raising the minimum wage is a good thing. Sometimes, I even have a problem with Buchanan on those kinds of issues. Republicans brag, "we defeated Healthcare." Shame on Republicans. You'll never get me to vote Republican. Healthcare, Environment, Gun Rights, we can have it both ways. Don't believe all the propaganda.
Buchanan's pointed in the right direction; he's "bore sighted", if you will. He's looking at America First. He's also flexible too. As a Roman Catholic, I believe he can be softened on Democratic issues. Look at the situation with Fulani, protectionism, etc. Give the man chance. Don't sell out to corporate greed.
No civilized country is considered a great country without good socialist policies. Now, before anti-Marxists and patriots jump off the fence, let me make myself clear. Left and right are antiquated concepts. They ended when George Bush Sr. said we lived in a New World Order. Today, more than ever, these people need to reorient themselves to the New World Order; it's about new politics, different issues.
Basically, what's hurting America today is too much Capitalism. Bush offers in many respects the same thing as Gore, but far worse. You might keep your guns for a short while, but you won't have any Social Security, Medicare, retirement, environment, etc. Is that really worth it?
These are issues no great country gives up. Frankly, if you want to know the truth, I voted for Dukakis in '88. I thought he would do a good job for the domestic economy. Why is wanting affordable healthcare such a sin? I think raising the minimum wage is a good thing. Sometimes, I even have a problem with Buchanan on those kinds of issues. Republicans brag, "we defeated Healthcare." Shame on Republicans. You'll never get me to vote Republican. Healthcare, Environment, Gun Rights, we can have it both ways. Don't believe all the propaganda.
Buchanan's pointed in the right direction; he's "bore sighted", if you will. He's looking at America First. He's also flexible too. As a Roman Catholic, I believe he can be softened on Democratic issues. Look at the situation with Fulani, protectionism, etc. Give the man chance. Don't sell out to corporate greed.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CleanCut:
I think raising the minimum wage is a good thing. [/quote]
Raising the minimum wage raises the long term unemployment equilibrium. Basically, if companies have to pay more for each worker, they hire less of them (all else being equal). That means less jobs for unskilled labor.
I think raising the minimum wage is a good thing. [/quote]
Raising the minimum wage raises the long term unemployment equilibrium. Basically, if companies have to pay more for each worker, they hire less of them (all else being equal). That means less jobs for unskilled labor.
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezdelnik:
The Constitution does not say that Congress can give the FDA the power to regulate harmful drugs, but it doesn't say that Congress can't do this, either.[/quote]
Wrong. Read Article I, Section 8. It states that Congress shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." In other words, Congress must make all the laws required for the functioning of the federal government or its departments and agencies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I would say it would only be unconstitutional if the Constitution expressly forbade it.[/quote]
Also wrong. If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's a power the federal government does not have. See Amendment X.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The city in which you live can regulate and even legislate, and that isn't in the Constitution, as far as I can tell(it just mentions states in Amendment X). That doesn't mean city regulations are unconstitutional, unless they are in direct conflict with other elements of the Constitution.[/quote]
The powers of state governments aren't set by the Constitution. If state governments want to charter city governments, that's within their authority. And note the consistency with the federal pattern in that laws at the state and local level are made by elected officials.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Another example: The Constitution doesn't say much about criminal law, but we have an extensive criminal law code. Am I to infer from what you're saying, that you believe criminal law in "unconstitutional"?[/quote]
Nope. The U.S. Code is established by Congress, not by regulatory agencies, which is lawmaking as the Constitution intended it.
And, I repeat, it's fine for Congress to set up agencies like the FDA to enforce laws that Congress has passed. But those agencies do not have any authority to make laws themselves, nor can Congress given them that authority.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 17, 2000).]
The Constitution does not say that Congress can give the FDA the power to regulate harmful drugs, but it doesn't say that Congress can't do this, either.[/quote]
Wrong. Read Article I, Section 8. It states that Congress shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." In other words, Congress must make all the laws required for the functioning of the federal government or its departments and agencies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I would say it would only be unconstitutional if the Constitution expressly forbade it.[/quote]
Also wrong. If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's a power the federal government does not have. See Amendment X.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The city in which you live can regulate and even legislate, and that isn't in the Constitution, as far as I can tell(it just mentions states in Amendment X). That doesn't mean city regulations are unconstitutional, unless they are in direct conflict with other elements of the Constitution.[/quote]
The powers of state governments aren't set by the Constitution. If state governments want to charter city governments, that's within their authority. And note the consistency with the federal pattern in that laws at the state and local level are made by elected officials.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Another example: The Constitution doesn't say much about criminal law, but we have an extensive criminal law code. Am I to infer from what you're saying, that you believe criminal law in "unconstitutional"?[/quote]
Nope. The U.S. Code is established by Congress, not by regulatory agencies, which is lawmaking as the Constitution intended it.
And, I repeat, it's fine for Congress to set up agencies like the FDA to enforce laws that Congress has passed. But those agencies do not have any authority to make laws themselves, nor can Congress given them that authority.
[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 17, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
And, I repeat, it's fine for Congress to set up agencies like the FDA to enforce laws that Congress has passed.[/quote]
Thank you!!! That was the point I was trying to make. The FDA is constitutional because Congress passed legislation to give it the authority to enforce laws, thus regulating that industry. Just as Congress passed laws to form the criminal code. The FDA may make recommendations to Congress when it sees the need to create new laws -- it may even DRAFT them, but Congress passes them!
If you don't think the Constitution allows Congress to do that, then maybe you should petition Congress so that Congress will create an Amendment to explicitly allow Congress to delegate this executive authority to an executive body. Then everything will be "constitutional" by your definition of the word.
Jeez! Is this thread 100K yet?
And, I repeat, it's fine for Congress to set up agencies like the FDA to enforce laws that Congress has passed.[/quote]
Thank you!!! That was the point I was trying to make. The FDA is constitutional because Congress passed legislation to give it the authority to enforce laws, thus regulating that industry. Just as Congress passed laws to form the criminal code. The FDA may make recommendations to Congress when it sees the need to create new laws -- it may even DRAFT them, but Congress passes them!
If you don't think the Constitution allows Congress to do that, then maybe you should petition Congress so that Congress will create an Amendment to explicitly allow Congress to delegate this executive authority to an executive body. Then everything will be "constitutional" by your definition of the word.
Jeez! Is this thread 100K yet?
- Status