Blah blah blah 2

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, dismantling or defanging various oppressive and unconstitutional government bureaucracies is the opposite of fascism.

Too bad that is your opinion which isn’t based on facts or laws but rather a feeling …


Also DOGE aims to target staffers who are not in DEI roles and employees who work in offices established by law to ensure equal rights, internal DOGE documents show.

Those pesky laws

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Too bad that is your opinion which isn’t based on facts or laws but rather a feeling …

It is based on the Constitution which does not give Congress the power to delegate its powers and responsibilities. It can establish agencies to investigate, advise, and recommend. But it cannot delegate its power to them to legislate or regulate.

Also DOGE aims to target staffers who are not in DEI roles and employees who work in offices established by law to ensure equal rights, internal DOGE documents show.

Those pesky laws

Pesky laws that delegate the congressional power of creating law to unelected agencies other than Congress itself, are constitutionally illegitimate.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Pesky laws that delegate the congressional power of creating law to unelected agencies other than Congress itself, are constitutionally illegitimate.

Again your argument isn’t based on on facts or current laws

It’s emotional..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again your argument isn’t based on on facts or current laws

It’s emotional..

The doctrine of nondelegation is not emotional. It is based on separation of powers in constitutional governments. It is a long standing principle pre-dating our own Constitution.

Per Wikipedia:
"The doctrine of nondelegation (or non-delegation principle) is a theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. The non-delegation doctrine stands for the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations."

It was not significantly questioned until the FDR administration appointed enough Progressive SCOTUS judges to allow a so-called "implied" power of Congress to delegate power to agencies other than Congress itself so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to do so.

Well, of course, "intelligible principle" can be totally subjective, or, as you say, even emotional in derivation.

The FDR administration ravaged the Constitution, as admitted by one of FDR's Braintrust members Rex Tugwell, and basically reduced it to a matter of opinion.

There are currently suggestions that the nondelegation doctrine may be revisited in SCOTUS.

That would be nice, especially if we have enough "originalist" oriented opinions on it. I wouldn't bank on it.

But my contention is not based on "emotion." Not that emotion would not, or should not, be part of the equation.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The doctrine of nondelegation is not emotional. It is based on separation of powers in constitutional governments. It is a long standing principle pre-dating our own Constitution.

Per Wikipedia:
"The doctrine of nondelegation (or non-delegation principle) is a theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. The non-delegation doctrine stands for the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations."

It was not significantly questioned until the FDR administration appointed enough Progressive SCOTUS judges to allow a so-called "implied" power of Congress to delegate power to agencies other than Congress itself so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to do so.

Well, of course, "intelligible principle" can be totally subjective, or, as you say, even emotional in derivation.

The FDR administration ravaged the Constitution, as admitted by one of FDR's Braintrust members Rex Tugwell, and basically reduced it to a matter of opinion.

There are currently suggestions that the nondelegation doctrine may be revisited in SCOTUS.

That would be nice, especially if we have enough "originalist" oriented opinions on it. I wouldn't bank on it.

But my contention is not based on "emotion." Not that emotion would not, or should not, be part of the equation.

I forgot you believe in Originalism that’s like being a flat earth believer

It’s just an excuse to avoid the truth of the reality we actually live in.

Not 13 colonies and it. 2.5 million people and but 50 states and there. 334.9 million citizens. (2023)

But we’ve had this discussion before. Let’s move on.. and i actually I would rather have this conversation in person.. because I honestly can’t compete with your writing skills. And that’s not being sarcastic.. it’s a compliment

[Rmarsh]

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

Probably this person

Donald J. Trump Hello Sir. I am one of the probationary employees terminated by the Doge at 9:00pm last night; February 14th. I voted for you, Sir, three times, and I still support you. I was encouraged by the DOGE to see they were getting rid of wasteful government spending; I support that too. My termination letter said I was being let go for performance reasons. I know that's not true; I am an excellent employee. I've been with the Federal government for almost 16 years. Sixteen years in June. I had started my career with USDA, transferred to DHS, and recently came back to USDA because it's such a great Agency to work for. Surely that must count for something in your eyes. I'm loyal and I firmly believe that the work I do as a USDA APHIS PPQ employee is vital and important. My boss, his boss, the managers in neighboring states, all agree I'm doing an excellent job and that I'm a great asset to the team. I'm the only
in the State of Kentucky and my work here is valued and honorable. Each time I voted for you, it was because I knew you'd make things right and you'd fix the wrongs. I'm counting on you now to make this right too. I'm pleading with you to reinstate my employment and give me my job back. Please, Mr. President. Thank You
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

A day of protest against fascism. How many sackless hypocrites will be taking it to the streets? I hear that at least eight people have commited to attending......weather permiting

Seeing you’re an expert on being a sackless hypocrite.. I am sure you’ll let us know

Man you get easily triggered when other Americans exercise their constitutional rights?

Why is that ..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I forgot you believe in Originalism that’s like being a flat earth believer

That's interesting. But I don't see the connection.
Could you point it out for me?

It’s just an excuse to avoid the truth of the reality we actually live in.

Whatever you envision the reality we actually live in to be, how have I lied (avoided the truth) about the nondelegation doctrine, or about the fact that creating hundreds of unelected government agencies with plenary power over the people is being fascistic? How is that all an "excuse"?

Not 13 colonies and it. 2.5 million people and but 50 states and there. 334.9 million citizens. (2023)

Did the "truth" of the nondelegation doctrine embedded in the Constitution become a lie with the addition of every new state? Or with the addition of every new citizen? Do statehood and the elements of humanity change in their basic nature as they become more numerous? Should we write a new Constitution or create a different form of government every time the population grows?

The "truth of the reality we live in" constantly changes in some way on a daily basis. One day a man is a man. The next day a man is a woman. The next day that's bunk. Is there no constant? Just total constant change? How is it possible to even have a state, a defined government, a defined human being, under such conditions?

So far, as I can see, humans have not gone through some basic evolutionary change since the time of the 13 colonies. Sure, there are the superficial surface changes in standards of living, cultural shifts, boundary changes, and so forth. But basic humanity, its physical and even metaphysical needs are pretty much the same, just different names and places. But the basic needs to be nourished, to be loved, to have fellowship, to procreate, to have family, and to have a personal amount of freedom and autonomy within a predictable, stable, society in which to flourish remain a constant.

And, as far as I can see, the original US Constitution still remains as one of the most viable governmental systems in which to achieve those basic needs.

But we’ve had this discussion before. Let’s move on..

"Let's move on" . . . to where? I hear that mantra, quite often . . . and it usually seems to be an "excuse" to escape from the "truth of the reality we live in" . . . into an undefined relief from the reality of a monotonous unbending "constitution" or other, or to justify the legal machinations of a preferred political party . . . Constitution, human nature, individual freedom, be damned . . .


and i actually I would rather have this conversation in person.. because I honestly can’t compete with your writing skills. And that’s not being sarcastic.. it’s a compliment

I mentioned, before, in the old political forum, that you had improved in your writing skills. You have taken it a notch up in those since then.

And I don't consider this a competition. That's why I hate debates where the goal is more to win than to convince and to arrive at some truth.

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I mentioned, before, in the old political forum, that you had improved in your writing skills. You have taken it a notch up in those since then.

Up a notch from fifth grade level?
When he gets stuck he falls back to hitler comparisons.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I mentioned, before, in the old political forum, that you had improved in your writing skills. You have taken it a notch up in those since then.

And I don't consider this a competition. That's why I hate debates where the goal is more to win than to convince and to arrive at some truth.

Well i feel a good debate is about convincing people of the truth ..based on facts and not feelings.. I don't consider that winning