GOPer decries 'regulation without representation'

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) used his first speech from the Senate floor to press for legislation that would create a panel to review federal rules, calling for an end to "regulation without representation." 

"Our great nation has been bogged down in recent years with what I believe is one of the greatest hindrances to job growth and economic productivity, and that is the overregulation of our citizens," he said Tuesday. 

Rounds introduced the Regulation Sensibility Through Oversight Restoration Resolution, which would create a Joint Select Committee to review new rules, as well as hold hearings on the impact of those already in place, and make recommendations on reducing regulatory overreach. 
 
He added that his legislation would "take a giant leap forward in restoring the people's role in the rule-making process." 
 
"Unfortunately, the voice of the people in the rule-making process has been cut out and replaced by unelected government bureaucrats who think they know better than the farmer or the scientist or the entrepreneur," he said. 
 
read more:

Views: 335

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good luck with that. We all know that we now live in a "regulation nation" and that's the way the idiots maintain CONTROL! 

  It is time to announce that the addresses of all of the rules and regulators are being typed up for public distribution as we speak.

Regulations only apply to the "Strawman".  Many Americans since birth have been enslaved by the "Strawman", never knowing who or what it is, they work and work and never get ahead.  Regulations apply to the corporate citizen, the chattel property of the United States Corporation.  The difference is the color of the pill, either red or blue, we all can choose how far to go down that rabbit hole.  The truth will set you free, in as much as you will understand the non-congruent history of our corporate country and the fact that LAWS don't apply to the ruling class like they apply to the working classes.

A heck of a lot of bloviating, but no action.  That's why the DemonRats have been emboldened.

Ted Cruz is the guy.

This is a great Idea, but who would be representing the people's standpoint? Who would fill the shoes to represent the people? I thought we already had representatives of the people. I think we need to get rid of those who are "Supposed" to represent "The People", and start from there. Then maybe we can have a special committee to review new and old regulations, but this idea will creating more government bureaucracy. The Idea is good, but I for one, do not trust the another government committee that involves the current government representatives to pull off a "Win" for the people.

Senator Rounds where have you been for the last 6 years? Now you want more legislation to somewhat deregulate  instead of stopping the illegal regulations to begin with.

"Regulation" initially meant "to make regular" meaning to keep the flow of goods from one state to another uninhibited.  Which meant preventing states from setting up roadblocks, taxes, etc.  Boy has that word every been misinterpreted!

What is the proper function of government, and what should a constitution contain?  Please watch:

http://youtu.be/zfb4DcSIIIs

How about you just DEFUND the alphabet regulators..ie EPA..that would be so much simpler and less costly than holding "hearings" that will get NOWHERE

Duh...been going on forever. Politicians claim they were our representatives and that they were elected to frame such agencies into the law to do things this way.

The only way to get rid of this crap is to totally eliminate the agencies that created it. Then ban anyone who ever worked for them from ever working in government.

I think his (first) speech on the floor was a good one - he (must be new? haven't heard anything from him before...) was emphasizing the fact that this Admin/Congress has taken away any concept of a government being directed by its citizens; not the other way around.  Each and every regulation, EO, or other administrative means to assert control has turned into a disaster; yet our Congress continues to go along with the same mistakes over and over - that's the definition of insanity.  

I was thinking that too the other day - taxes to the states only; then the states pay the very small/limited Federal Government for the few things necessary from (a Federal) government - and they do so only on performance basis.  That would include military and the interstates.  No contracts negotiated by our government - companies do that; governments don't need to.    The "Feds" would basically have 50 (plus territories) agents to deal with.  That would decrease the size of the Federal Govt.  The States already employ more than enough people to do anything/everything.  

It's about TIME some one took thes un-elected bureaucrates to task enough !!.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service