More Totalitarian Progressivism - Obama Directs FCC To Raise Taxes Bypassing Congress

[Patranus]

It is becoming increasingly clear that President Obama does not approve of the American Founders’ notion that Congress’s role is to pass laws, and the president’s role is to execute them. On the heels of his unilateral decision not to start Obamacare’s employer mandate on the date that the legislation prescribes — a decision that begs the question of whether a Republican president, following Obama’s precedent, could unilaterally decide to gut other parts of Obamacare — Obama is now seeking to raise taxes on all cell phone users, reappropriate the billions collected, and spend it on “a whole new educational ecosystem.” Moreover, he says, “We can do this without Congress.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...es-fund-new-educational-ecosystem_748400.html

So glad we have a constitution/checks and balances.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...es-fund-new-educational-ecosystem_748400.html

So glad we have a constitution/checks and balances.

You realize that the FCC's power to set those fees was given to it BY Congress, right?

Gee, the Weekly Standard lie to people? Who ever would have thought...

 

[michal1980]

whats worse is Obama appointing a lobbyist to the position, something he campaigned he wouldn't do. I doubt the liberal MSM will call him on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/14/cant-wait-to-nominate-another-lobbyist/

""John McCain can't see or won't acknowledge what's obvious to all of us here today -- that lobbyists aren't just part of the system in Washington, they're part of the problem."

-- Then-Sen. Barack Obama campaigning in Montana, May 19, 2008"

 

[Geosurface]

For a whole host of reasons I've become convinced that this country will benefit greatly from moving beyond the Obama era. I don't think his successor will be much better, but I think the blind devotion and charisma he has keep a lot of people from ever being able to call him out on anything.

 

[BoberFett]

You realize that the FCC's power to set those fees was given to it BY Congress, right?

Gee, the Weekly Standard lie to people? Who ever would have thought...

Sadly, eskimospy is correct here. Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility to the bureaucracy. That's part of the reason your vote has no meaning. Because the people who make a lot of the rules aren't elected. Congress gave that power to unelected officials.

 

[BlueWolf47]

One branch of our government has determined that they no longer have the responsibility to legeslate or provide proper oversight.

 

[Zaap]

Sadly, eskimospy is correct here. Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility to the bureaucracy.

If we were still operating like a Constitutional Republic, then congress has no such authority to abdicate its responsibilities. But of course, that ship sailed a long time ago and now the government behaves in many ways in a completely lawless manner.

 

[bradley]

Same thing happened with czars to a large extent. Just because it has been happening for decades doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. Unfortunately most of these abridgement cases likely will never be brought before the Supreme Court.

 

[Jhhnn]

You realize that the FCC's power to set those fees was given to it BY Congress, right?

Gee, the Weekly Standard lie to people? Who ever would have thought...

Of course. And when that simple truth comes out, the usual ravers will go on about how Congress doesn't have the right to do that, exhibit total denial.

Nevermind what the revenue will be used for, because the don't need no more edumucation crowd aren't willing to give an inch to strengthen education & therefore the Nation.

 

[Zaap]

Of course. And when that simple truth comes out, the usual ravers will go on about how Congress doesn't have the right to do that, exhibit total denial.

Nevermind what the revenue will be used for, because the don't need no more edumucation crowd aren't willing to give an inch to strengthen education & therefore the Nation.

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the authority to delegate its powers of taxation to any other branch of government or entity?

Even the IRS's ability to collect taxes is covered under the nondelegation doctrine- that is, congress doesn't have to directly collect taxes owed, that task can be done by an executive branch agency like the IRS- but even the IRS can't directly create or raise taxes on its own.

Even though many have wanted it, the Executive branch doesn't have the power to do a line item veto- it violates the separation of powers since only congress has that power, and no, they can't delegate it no matter how bad a President may want it.

Congress has no real authority to delegate its powers of taxation under our constitution. It's not an implied power either, it's a power expressly enumerated in Article 1, section 8.

So why is separation of powers so hard to understand for some people?

 

[Jhhnn]

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the authority to delegate its powers of taxation to any other branch of government or entity?

Even the IRS's ability to collect taxes is covered under the nondelegation doctrine- that is, congress doesn't have to directly collect taxes owed, that task can be done by an executive branch agency like the IRS- but even the IRS can't directly create or raise taxes on its own.

Even though many have wanted it, the Executive branch doesn't have the power to do a line item veto- it violates the separation of powers since only congress has that power, and no, they can't delegate it no matter how bad a President may want it.

Congress has no real authority to delegate its powers of taxation under our constitution. It's not an implied power either, it's a power expressly enumerated in Article 1, section 8.

So why is separation of powers so hard to understand for some people?

Why is denial so prevalent among people who fancy themselves as Constitutional scholars?

 

[Zaap]

^Typical liberal non-answer. Nothing ever from your type but airheaded platitudes, dumb one-liners, and regurgitated bumper sticker talking points. NEVER a shred of facts or actual knowledge of anything.

No wonder you're so obsessed with soaking someone else to pay for education. You clearly never received one. Or if someone tried to teach you anything or even how to learn, you clearly weren't bothering to pay attention.

But see, that's not my fault or anyone else's but your own. Pay for you own damn lack of education.

 

[Patranus]

^Typical liberal non-answer. Nothing ever from your type but airheaded platitudes, dumb one-liners, and regurgitated bumper sticker talking points. NEVER a shred of facts or actual knowledge of anything.

No wonder you're so obsessed with soaking someone else to pay for education. You clearly never received one. Or if someone tried to teach you anything or even how to learn, you clearly weren't bothering to pay attention.

But see, that's not my fault or anyone else's but your own. Pay for you own damn lack of education.

Yeah. Reminds me of when progressives bitch and moan about the regulation of marijuana by the federal government when in fact is is progressive policy (FDR perversion of the commerce clause) that "granted" the federal government that authority.

 

[Jhhnn]

^Typical liberal non-answer. Nothing ever from your type but airheaded platitudes, dumb one-liners, and regurgitated bumper sticker talking points. NEVER a shred of facts or actual knowledge of anything.

No wonder you're so obsessed with soaking someone else to pay for education. You clearly never received one. Or if someone tried to teach you anything or even how to learn, you clearly weren't bothering to pay attention.

But see, that's not my fault or anyone else's but your own. Pay for you own damn lack of education.

Lashing out is part of denial, no doubt. Several facts remain-

Congress did, in fact, authorize this when they delegated authority to the Executive branch. They've done similar things many times, like wrt the invasion of Iraq & authorization to use nuclear weapons if so attacked. I'm sure the list goes on from there. If they're terribly unhappy about it, they can legislate to regain control.

That alone makes the OP's raving about "Totalitarian Progressivism" completely absurd. The Executive branch has done nothing they weren't authorized to do by Congress.

As a mobile phone user, I'll pay the same taxes as anybody else in that regard, so your accusations about soaking somebody else are empty raving- par for the course, I'm afraid.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah. Reminds me of when progressives bitch and moan about the regulation of marijuana by the federal government when in fact is is progressive policy (FDR perversion of the commerce clause) that "granted" the federal government that authority.

Feel the need to duh-vert, as usual?

Apparently so.

 

[rudder]

For a whole host of reasons I've become convinced that this country will benefit greatly from moving beyond the Obama era. I don't think his successor will be much better, but I think the blind devotion and charisma he has keep a lot of people from ever being able to call him out on anything.

The majority of obama voters just want a cell phone, subsidized healthcare, easy to get disability, foodstamps, etc. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Jhhnn]

The majority of obama voters just want a cell phone, subsidized healthcare, easy to get disability, foodstamps, etc. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Nice strawman!

 

[fskimospy]

Where in the Constitution is congress granted the authority to delegate its powers of taxation to any other branch of government or entity?

Even the IRS's ability to collect taxes is covered under the nondelegation doctrine- that is, congress doesn't have to directly collect taxes owed, that task can be done by an executive branch agency like the IRS- but even the IRS can't directly create or raise taxes on its own.

Even though many have wanted it, the Executive branch doesn't have the power to do a line item veto- it violates the separation of powers since only congress has that power, and no, they can't delegate it no matter how bad a President may want it.

Congress has no real authority to delegate its powers of taxation under our constitution. It's not an implied power either, it's a power expressly enumerated in Article 1, section 8.

So why is separation of powers so hard to understand for some people?

This is incorrect, as mobile phone fees are not covered by the nondelegation doctrine. If that were the case, no executive branch agency could create any fee of any kind that was not explicitly authorized by Congress, and that is clearly untrue. (Although it would be pretty funny to require an act of Congress to change the ticket price at the Smithsonian IMAX theater) Congress can (and has) delegated its authority to the FCC to set fees for the use of mobile phones. The ability for Congress to delegate the authority to executive branch agencies to set fees, tariffs, etc is explicitly upheld by Supreme Court precedent.

You appear to have been confused by the Weekly Standard's lies as well, in that nothing in here is the creation of a new tax. You have to remember that the people writing for that publication are doing it to advance an agenda, they have no interest in giving you accurate information if that conflicts with the story they want you to buy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This is incorrect, as mobile phone fees are not covered by the nondelegation doctrine. If that were the case, no executive branch agency could create any fee of any kind that was not explicitly authorized by Congress, and that is clearly untrue. (Although it would be pretty funny to require an act of Congress to change the ticket price at the Smithsonian IMAX theater) Congress can (and has) delegated its authority to the FCC to set fees for the use of mobile phones. The ability for Congress to delegate the authority to executive branch agencies to set fees, tariffs, etc is explicitly upheld by Supreme Court precedent.

You appear to have been confused by the Weekly Standard's lies as well, in that nothing in here is the creation of a new tax. You have to remember that the people writing for that publication are doing it to advance an agenda, they have no interest in giving you accurate information if that conflicts with the story they want you to buy.

1.) Under what premise was Obamacare ruled constitutional?

2.) Would Obamacare (and the requirements it places on the non-insured citizens to buy insurance) be Constitutional if this failure to act was turned into a mandated fee/fine rather than a tax?

 

[fskimospy]

1.) Under what premise was Obamacare ruled constitutional?

2.) Would Obamacare (and the requirements it places on the non-insured citizens to buy insurance) be Constitutional if this failure to act was turned into a mandated fee/fine rather than a tax?

I have no idea what either of those questions has to do with the topic at hand.

The ACA question was about Congress's taxation/commerce clause power and this is about Congress delegating the authority to regulate.

Furthermore, this is a tax on mobile phone use, which requires an affirmative act of purchasing a mobile phone and a service plan as opposed to the (fallacious) argument that not buying health insurance meant you weren't participating in the health market.

The only questions here are:

1.) Is this fee within Congress's powers? The answer is yes.
2.) Can Congress delegate this power? The answer is yes.
3.) Did Congress delegate this power? The answer is yes.

 

[soulcougher73]

^Typical liberal non-answer. Nothing ever from your type but airheaded platitudes, dumb one-liners, and regurgitated bumper sticker talking points. NEVER a shred of facts or actual knowledge of anything.

Why are you describing conservatives but calling them liberals? I doubt they would like that very much.

 

[PokerGuy]

..but....but... obummer told me he wouldn't be raising my taxes. Was he lying yet again? Why of course he was. Of course leftist idiots will defend this end-run around congress to raise taxes, not realizing that at some point the tables will turn and some idiot with an R behind his name will use these same tactics.... then they'll whine about it.

 

[bshole]

For a whole host of reasons I've become convinced that this country will benefit greatly from moving beyond the Obama era.

Let me guess, creating a record high stock market, ending a depression, extracting us from Iraq, not engaging in a war with Iran, etc... (these are all BAD things in your world).

Yea you are right, things are going too good right now, better throw a wrench into the works by electing a Republican president. I'm sure he could destroy everything in a year or so...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

For a whole host of reasons I've become convinced that this country will benefit greatly from moving beyond the Obama era. I don't think his successor will be much better, but I think the blind devotion and charisma he has keep a lot of people from ever being able to call him out on anything.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that hillary is probably next. 8 more years of fooling the people is easy, just have a different figurehead each time. :awe:

 

[xBiffx]

Let me guess, creating a record high stock market, ending a depression, extracting us from Iraq, not engaging in a war with Iran, etc... (these are all BAD things in your world).

Yea you are right, things are going too good right now, better throw a wrench into the works by electing a Republican president. I'm sure he could destroy everything in a year or so...

LOL!