Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘congressional intent’

… So What Can Be Done ?!?! [#Iran Nuclear Agreement]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,August 10th,2016

.. according to the terms of the agreement [and the Corker – Cardin bill] , the bill must be voted on by September 17th ..

.. there are several sources that indicate that the entire agreement [as it stands] has NOT been presented to the U.S. Congress . How do we know ? Congressman Pompeo and one of his senate colleagues [I am not sure who] were inadvertanly briefed by the IAEA and the US in Switzerland during the final negotiations . Also , there were classified briefings of members of Congress . Those briefings indicate that there are side deals , the existence of which has not been publically disclosed . So we know the truth …

.. [h/t — WashingtonComPost.com]..
.. [link] to the blog column ..

.. voting on the agreement would be outrageous . Congress has not been presented the entire thing . Also , the whole enterprise has been designed to evade the eyes of the US Congress .

.. so what happens ?? …

.. Congressman Pompeo and constitutional scholar David Rivlin offer a solution …

That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions. Indeed, since the act also provides for the transmittal of the agreement to Congress between July 10 and Sept. 7, the president’s ability to waive statutory sanctions will remain frozen in perpetuity if Congress does not receive the full agreement Monday .

Congress must now confront the grave issues of constitutional law prompted by the president’s failure to comply with his obligations under the act. This is not the first time this administration has disregarded clear statutory requirements, encroaching in the process upon Congress’s legislative and budgetary prerogatives. The fact that this has happened again in the context of a national security agreement vital to the United States and its allies makes the situation all the more serious.

For Congress to vote on the merits of the agreement without the opportunity to review all of its aspects would both effectively sanction the president’s unconstitutional conduct and be a major policy mistake. Instead, both houses should vote to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act by not providing Congress with a copy of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran, and that, as a result, the president remains unable to lift statutory sanctions against Iran. Then, if the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.

.. don’t vote on the agreement . Vote on a resolution that demands that the entire agreement be disclosed publically . Also , said resolution should state that the Corker – Cardin bill is not in effect , due to the failure of the ObamaCraps to present it to Congress . Let the DemoCraps filibuster that …

Advertisements

Posted in congressional intent, congressional oversight, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What are the Feds Thinking ?!?! [#federal lands][#fracking regs]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,June 18th,2016

.. Congress has acted in this area , already . They have stated that fracking regulation is to be reseved to the states . If a state does not want fracking on its lands [such as the idiots in New York state] , then they do not have it . But it is the state ‘ s choice . It is not the Federales ‘ choice .

.. so Congress has clearly acted in this area . The statement of intent applies to even federal lands . Ditto to Indian Tribal lands , as well . So then , what the hell are the ObamaCraps doing ?? …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]..
.. [link] to the blog article …

.. these dummies are attempting a powergrab , plain and simple . The federal courts are going to have to step in and smack the government down and stop their lawless action . Unfortunately , as a result , lands will lie fallow , especially Indian Tribal lands . Those lands are some of the most promising of possibilities . But not now …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Don’t Those Knuckleheads Ever Learn [#US Treasury][#tax inversion]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 6th,2016

.. it seems that Our country ‘ s Treasury Department is a glutton for punishment . Also , they want to be stuck in court with multiple court cases ..

.. So , what the fart is the big brawl all about with these ” tax inversions ?? ” …

.. simple , and for 2 reasons . One is our country ‘ s tax rate . Currently our’ s top tax rate for corporations is about 35.0% , which is the highest in the Western World . Having a rate that high is going to inspire many attempts to go to tax havens , and the use of tax dodges ..

.. [h/t — Reuteurs.com/business]..
.. [link] to the blog post news ..

.. the other is the way our country taxes corporations . Worldwide , companies are taxed generally one way . They only pay tax on the earnings on the income earned in that specific country . Our does it radically different . Our country taxes income on companies on a worldwide business basis . It just does not mean our nation alone , but in every other country on the planet ..

.. Treasury is trying to legislate by ” executive order ” or by regulation . Oops . Regulations may interpret and implement existing law . They may not act to write new law . That is Congress ‘ job ,folks ..

.. So , what happens ? The stuff get challenged in court , and by a company willing to take on the battle .most companies do not want the to spend the fuss or the tIme .But some do . Those are the ones that will benefit from the battle [and the expense]…

Posted in body of law, congressional intent, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Bill , I think that You are Wrong …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,February 11th,2014

.. what he and Dr. Charles Krauthammer were brawling about tonite on ” the O Reilly Factor ” was about the ObamaCrap Administration ‘ s ability to administratively fiddle around with ObamaCrapCare ” on the edges . ”

.. What I believe Bill was talking about was what is known as , legally , as Chevron deference . This refers to a legal case from almost 30 years ago , where the N.R.D.C. [the National Resources Defence Council] challenged an admininstrative action of the Environmental Protection Agency under Ronaldus Magnus .The N.R.D.C. did not like the enforcement action by the E.P.A. , and challenged the government in court .

.. as it turns out , I checked , and I did not have it quite right . The N.R.D.C. won at the District Court level . Since Chevron was an affected party , they could bring an action in court , and they did . They appealed , and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court .

.. This one went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court . The N.R.D.C. ended up losing its case , and the legal precedent of administrative judgement was created . This is where the term ” Chevron Deference ” comes from . It is a two – prong test . In case you might wonder , the current IRS challenge to the tax subsidies , Halbig v Sebelius , is being fought under this legal standard .

.. [h/t — Wikipedia]..

.. [link] to the article .. remember , it is Wikipedia . However , when I have consulted it , I have had good result from it . Just take the results from your search with a grain of salt …

.. Back to Chevron . Well , it is a two – prong test . I am lifting the following from the Wikipedia article on ” Chevron Deference , ” because it is fairly easy to understand , even for those of us with limited to no legal knowledge …

Holding[edit]

The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA’s interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the “Chevron two-step test”), where a reviewing court determines:

(1) “First, always, is the question whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

“If the Court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . Rather,

(2) [I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–843 (1984).

.. LEC again — basically in (1) , if Congress has spoken , that is it , folks . It is the end of the matter . If they have not , then you move on to (2) . In (2) , if the statute is silent , or is ambiguous , then is it a reasonable setup of the statute ? If not , then the agency ‘ s interpretation and action falls …

Importance[edit]

Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law, though some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.[4]

Eighteen years later Chevron itself was able to invoke Chevron deference to win another case before the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court applied Chevron deference and upheld as reasonable an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation, which allowed an employer to refuse to hire an applicant when the applicant’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to the applicant’s own health. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).

Three recent decisions of the Supreme Court may limit the scope of administrative agency actions that receive Chevron deference to agency decisions that have the “force of law.”[5] This new doctrine is sometimes referred to as “Chevron step zero.”[6] Thus, for example, a regulation promulgated under the “notice and comment” provisions of § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act would be likely to receive Chevron deference, while a letter sent by an agency, such as a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “no-action” letter, would not.[7] However, an agency action that does not receive Chevron deference may still receive some degree of deference under the old standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).[8] The majority in Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) suggested that Chevron deference should apply to formal agency documents which have the force of law while Skidmore should apply to less formal agency documents in an attempt to draw a bright line for the question of “force of law” under Chevron step zero.

.. LEC here again — In this , it is the difference whether the agency ‘ s interpretation and decision carries the ” force of law . ” If it does , then Chevron deference . If not , maybe some level of deference , based upon the old standards …

.. in summation — I think what the ObamaCraps are doing with ObamaCrapCare is a gross misuse of ” Chevron Deference . ” The big thing for them is if someone is harmed by their actions ? Someone just might … . When someone is , then they have what is legally known as ” standing ” to challenge the action …. God in Heaven help the ObamaCraps if someone does , because they will lose , and lose badly …

Posted in accountability, constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… If There is No Legal Basis [for Exec Orders] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,February 1st,2014

.. then , what is their legal foundation , if any .

.. this piece frames a substantive question from US Senator Mike Lee [R-UT] that was put forth in an oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee . AG Holder was , to say the least , on the hot seat . He could not provide any legal basis at all for many of POTUS ‘ EOs , especially his delay of the ObamaCrapCare employer mandate . If there was not any legal basis for them , then how are they legitimate at all …

.. [h/t —Washington Examiner] ..

.. [link] to the Congressional testimony . Watch the AG sizzile as he tries to explain the unexplainable acts …

.. the courts will give the Exec Branch a great deal of what it now known as ” Chevron deference ” in the interpretation and implementation of a law . That deference only goes so far . If it does not confer with Congressional intent , Congressional powers , and / or the explicit or implicit powers of the Executive , then No Soap ..

Posted in constitutional opinion, historical opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »