Obama's Lawless Bureaucracy Now Trying To Deliver an Unconstitutional Advantage to Big Labor

A "rule" -- written by unelected bureaucrats -- proposes that a vote on unionization must occur quickly after the union's request of such.

Those in business and labor are expecting a vote in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week, on a joint resolution for congressional disapproval that would block the regulation. A Senate Republican leadership aide told The Hill that a vote on the measure was expected sometime over the next two weeks.

...

Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce oppose the rule, which would speed up union elections. Glenn Spencer, vice president of the Chamber’s Workforce Freedom Initiative, has said in the past that a vote on the joint resolution is likely the most significant labor vote this congressional session.

“This vote is coming soon, and it’s the Senate's opportunity to tell the board that it has gone too far,” Spencer told The Hill.

Why is Obama's bureaucracy pushing this?

Because a union might be campaigning for unionization a year before they ask for a vote. If they ask for a snap election, the company has no time to lobby against it.

Lou Dobbs was just discussing this on Fox. When a vote is taken 11 to 15 days after the request, the unions win almost 90% of votes.

When a vote is taken 36-44 days, unions win less than 60% of the votes.

So obviously the quickie vote is in the unions' favor.

Is it in the company's favor? No, of course not.

Is it in the worker's favor? No -- because workers, armed with more information (the argument by the company against the union) make different decisions than they do when they make hasty ones.

Obama's new rule, then, has a main intent of denying important, decision-affecting information to workers.

It's also unconstitutional for a federal bureaucracy to make new law.

Here's a brief digest of the history of executive law-making:

In the beginning, the Congress wrote and passed all laws. There were no federal bureaucratic "regulations" -- Congress had to specify what was permitted and what was impermissible.

As the national government grew larger, with more fingers in every pie, Congress discovered it could not possibly keep up with the myriad micro-laws -- "regulations" -- they had to write. Like, if they passed a law that trucks traveling on the interstate highway system had to have pollution controls, well, what level of carbon monoxide production was permitted?

They began empowering a federal agency to write the actual law -- which they called "regulations" -- while Congress just wrote the big-picture main thrust of it, and then delegated rule-making power to the executive branch.

This was challenged as far as constitutionality. Congress cannot delegate a power to the executive that the Constitution says lies with -- and must lie with -- Congress itself.

But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.

There's a lot of mischief exploitable here, obviously.

But to the extent this law/rule distinction makes sense it surely must mean that a "rule" which shifts the balance of power dramatically between citizens cannot in any twisted sense be called a "rule," but must be called a "law" requiring the regular Constitutional practice of a majority vote in Congress.

You cannot override the inconvenient Congress by simply making every law you can't pass into a "rule" that unelected bureaucrats write up and enact into law on their own nonexistent authority.

Lawmaking is supposed to be inconvenient. It's supposed to take some effort. It's supposed to be exposed to the process of blocs of competing interests lobbying one way or the other and Representatives, accountable to their constituents, voting one way or the other.

We cannot, even if we wished (and we should not wish) to delegate the power reserved to Congress, in trust of The People, to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Now, even though Congress may vote on a joint resolution to block this-- and this cannot be filibustered in the Senate -- it still requires The President's signature to block the rule:

Under the Congressional Review Act, the joint resolution cannot be filibustered and can pass the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Despite not needing 60 votes in the Senate, it is still a difficult road forward for the joint resolution since it will need Democratic votes to pass. Further, to overturn the rule, the joint resolution would have to be signed by President Obama, who has received labor backing for his reelection bid, after it had passed in both the House and the Senate.

Note how ass-backwards this all is: You don't need any such Constitutional dignities to pass the rule in the first place, but to stop it, you need a majority vote and the President's signature.

Shouldn't it have taken a majority vote and the President's signature in the first place?

This out-of-whack unconsitutional system creates a strong bias in favor of bureaucratic, not democratic, power. The President's bureaucrats can make new law with no authority whatsoever, and no Constitutional procedures observed -- and to stop them, it requires a formal law.

Which he can veto.

Terrific, huh?

This is what I'm talking about when I say Obama will become a tyrant in 2013 if he is still in office. With Congress still arrayed against him (in all probability), he will just go the Soviet Route and rely on his unelected bureaucrats unconstitutionally passing laws on its own (or, rather, his) authority.

Democracies end when power is moved farther and farther from actual democratic processes. First, the state governments (standing closest to the citizen) is diminished in favor of a centralized government that answers chiefly to bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the permanent Washington government establishment; then the elected members of Congress are diminished in favor of unelected bureaucrats in the Executive (who, in many cases, really can't even be fired).

One line of attack removes power from the nation at large to Washington DC; the second line of attack removes power even from the elected tribunals from the country and pushes it into the hands of bureaucrats who answer only to the Executive (if they answer to anyone at all).

This must not stand. Because if it stands, the American Experiment will not.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM



Comments

1 A Socialist Utopia can only be achieved by force....and maintained by force.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 02:35 PM (+5U+B)

2 Look for the union label

Posted by: Cricket at April 16, 2012 02:37 PM (DrC22)

3 Anyone think we're boned? Show of hands?

Posted by: real joe at April 16, 2012 02:38 PM (B+j5V)

4 But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.


**********

Damnit--which decision was this?

Posted by: tasker at April 16, 2012 02:38 PM (r2PLg)

5 Ever noticed how quickly things get done in China?

Posted by: Tom Friedman at April 16, 2012 02:39 PM (QKKT0)

6 I mean how the hell did they get something like that passed Kennedy with his fixation on "accountability"?

Posted by: tasker at April 16, 2012 02:39 PM (r2PLg)

7 This is a Chicago, pay to play, reward your friends, corrupt, dishonest, crooked, and bury your enemies Administration. Crooks each and every one of them.

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 16, 2012 02:39 PM (i6RpT)

8 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Is briefly lucid at April 16, 2012 02:40 PM (KxyHe)

9 So this is how the commies will be getting their union backers on board, talk about pandering.

You just know they have their sights set on WalMart.

The ability of the left to stomp on what's left of the American economy knows no bounds.

Posted by: Boots at April 16, 2012 02:40 PM (neKzn)

10 This is what I'm talking about when I say Obama will become a tyrant in
2013 if he is still in office. With Congress still arrayed against him
(in all probability), he will just go the Soviet Route and rely on his
unelected bureaucrats unconstitutionally passing laws on its own (or,
rather, his) authority.

Oh good, so I'm not the only one paranoid about unfettered bureaucracy. And yes, an amazing amount of mischief can be achieved at the bureaucratic level, mainly because the bureaucrats and the groups who influence them are indistinguishable in their backgrounds.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at April 16, 2012 02:40 PM (RD7QR)

11 Better do what they say.

Posted by: Zombie Jimmy Hoffa at April 16, 2012 02:41 PM (WCuHB)

12 So this is how the commies plan on getting card check accomplished for their moneyboys.

Posted by: Boots at April 16, 2012 02:42 PM (neKzn)

13 Anyone think we're boned? Show of hands?


Posted by: real joe at April 16, 2012 02:38 PM (B+j5V)


Constitutional Union of American States.

It's coming. It's impossible to live with leftists (who are not satisfied being leftists in their own leftist States - as federalist conservatives allow them as per the Constitution - but must force everyone to be just like them) and the percentage of leftist America-haters among our population is too large. There will be a split.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 16, 2012 02:42 PM (X3lox)

14 2nd Amendment will be erased if Obama is re-elected.

Posted by: izoneguy at April 16, 2012 02:43 PM (hbRed)

15 The thing we don't say enough: What did Cass Sunstein do today, to ruin my tomorrow?

We need regulatory sunset amendment, no regulation stands beyond the current session of Congress without being passed as legislation, enrolled, and signed by the President. Additionally, a bureaucratic control needs to be written into every law - a hold by committee, something.

Posted by: Jean at April 16, 2012 02:43 PM (WkuV6)

16 Obama already is a tyrant, no need to wait until 2013. Every day he and his cronies alter this nation through regulation making bureaucrats and executive orders. They don't need no stinking Congress, or voters for that matter.

Posted by: thunderb at April 16, 2012 02:44 PM (Dnbau)

17 Oh good, so I'm not the only one paranoid about unfettered bureaucracy. And yes, an amazing amount of mischief can be achieved at the bureaucratic level, mainly because the bureaucrats and the groups who influence them are indistinguishable in their backgrounds.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at April 16, 2012 02:40 PM (RD7QR)


*******************

It's like they had 24/7 bull sessions with the 'intelligensia" at Harvard thinking of ways to circumvent the Constitution.

Posted by: tasker at April 16, 2012 02:45 PM (r2PLg)

18 Next up: All medicaid/medicare healthcare providers forced to become government/union employees.


Think it won't happen? ThinkProgress has been talking about that plan for years.

Posted by: Daybrother at April 16, 2012 02:45 PM (WCuHB)

19 >>>he will just go the Soviet Route and rely on his unelected bureaucrats
unconstitutionally passing laws on its own (or, rather, his) authority.


Would a narcissistic megalomaniac really DO that?

Posted by: Fritz at April 16, 2012 02:45 PM (KWdVT)

20 @12 - This isn't quite to that level, but it's way too close for my comfort.

@14 - He may try it, but I think that would be a step too far too quickly.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Is briefly lucid at April 16, 2012 02:45 PM (KxyHe)

21 Why is Obama's bureaucracy pushing this?

Because a union might be campaigning for unionization a year before they ask for a vote. If they ask for a snap election, the company has no time to lobby against it.

Lou Dobbs was just discussing this on Fox. When a vote is taken 11 to 15 days after the request, the unions win almost 90% of votes.

When a vote is taken 36-44 days, unions win less than 60% of the votes.

So obviously the quickie vote is in the unions' favor.

Is it in the company's favor? No, of course not.

Is it in the worker's favor? No -- because workers, armed with more information (the argument by the company against the union) make different decisions than they do when they make hasty ones.

Obama's new rule, then, has a main intent of denying important, decision-affecting information to workers.



**************

That's the Democrat's bread and butter--

low information voters.

Posted by: tasker at April 16, 2012 02:46 PM (r2PLg)

22 Crybaby Conservatives.
Bet none of you ever thought that the Bushes or Reagan or Nixon were tyrants when they did the same as Obama by promulgating rules.
Of course, they were acting on behalf of the people, right?

Posted by: carlito at April 16, 2012 02:46 PM (7y0WU)

23 Would a narcissistic megalomaniac really DO that?

Hugo Chavez on lines one through fifty-nine.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 16, 2012 02:47 PM (B+qrE)

24 Would a narcissistic megalomaniac really DO that?

Is anyone else chewing their fingernails?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Is briefly lucid at April 16, 2012 02:47 PM (KxyHe)

25 A "rule" -- written by unelected bureaucrats -- proposes that a vote on unionization must occur quickly after the union's request of such.

Well since Obama has such a problem with anyone who is "unelected" making life decisions for us proles - you know, like the Supreme Court - then we can just ignore this. Right?

November can't get here fast enough for me.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:47 PM (sbV1u)

26 This site is monitored. We collect information for use against our enemies. Be silent and save yourselves.

Posted by: David Axelrod at April 16, 2012 02:48 PM (c3mby)

27 The Nomenklatura will take over if there is a second term. I wouldn't be surprised if they brazenly defy court decisions too.

Posted by: forest at April 16, 2012 02:48 PM (7RBBe)

28 This was challenged as far as constitutionality. Congress cannot delegate a power to the executive that the Constitution says lies with -- and must lie with -- Congress itself.

But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.



************************************


Does anyone know what Supreme Court case Ace is referring to--^here?

Posted by: tasker at April 16, 2012 02:49 PM (r2PLg)

29 Bet none of you ever thought that the Bushes or
Reagan or Nixon were tyrants when they did the same as Obama by
promulgating rules.

Of course, they were acting on behalf of the people, right?

Posted by: carlito at April 16, 2012 02:46 PM (7y0WU)


A skyscraper is not a "chair" just because it has a flat roof that people can sit on.

Get a brain.



Actually, get a brain stem.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 16, 2012 02:49 PM (X3lox)

30 This site is monitored. We collect information for use against our enemies. Be silent and save yourselves.

Posted by: David Axelrod


Cool. When I go down I'm taking you with me.

I ought to be able to feast on your carcass for at least four years in the gulag.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:49 PM (sbV1u)

31 It took awhile but the AxelTurfer trolls have finally rolled out of bed and logged on.

Posted by: Boots at April 16, 2012 02:50 PM (neKzn)

32 Oh look, a troll who refuses to acknowledge that we are currently living in 2012 and not 1971, 1984, 1991, or 2006.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 16, 2012 02:50 PM (B+qrE)

33 Sure would be nice if we had a party or a candidate that could articulate how awful these rules and regulations are, how they stifle freedom and innovation.

Maybe in 2014 or 2016. For now, "managing the decline" may be the best we can do. Still better than leaving the floodgates open, but not good enough.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at April 16, 2012 02:50 PM (zgHLA)

34 It's coming. It's impossible to live with leftists (who are not satisfied being leftists in their own leftist States - as federalist conservatives allow them as per the Constitution - but must force everyone to be just like them) and the percentage of leftist America-haters among our population is too large. There will be a split.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 16, 2012 02:42 PM (X3lox)

--------------------------------------------------

The train wreck has already happened. It just took awhile for people to realize what happened, see their own as well as all the people around them's condition and start screaming. Happens with every tragedy.

And, yes, if DC isn't checked and soon, there will be a split.Everything that stands for the US Consititution will be lost if there isn't.

Posted by: Soona at April 16, 2012 02:50 PM (RI6QE)

35 Obama Campaign Makes $10 Million Off The Corpse Of Trayvon Martin.
--------------------------------------

Actually, it's worse than that. For the month of March, 190,000 first-time donors gave an average of $50 to the Obama campaign.

Hmmmm.......what was going on in the month of March? Who could these small donors be?

Racial resentment is big money. Just like in 2008.

Posted by: Killjoy at April 16, 2012 02:51 PM (UF4HH)

36 Charleneo do you have a reading comprehension problem? Exactly when did any of those presidents circumvent congress to force workers into labor unions? Exactly how is it the federal government's business to force private company workers to submit to this?

Dumbass.

Posted by: Daybrother at April 16, 2012 02:51 PM (WCuHB)

37 I don't know, these days it is difficult to tell the "real" trolls from the regular smartass commenters who are pretending to be trolls. Sometimes I bite and get all indignant just to discover that it is a perfect parody.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 16, 2012 02:53 PM (RZ8pf)

38 27 The Nomenklatura will take over if there is a second term. I wouldn't be surprised if they brazenly defy court decisions too.

Posted by: forest at April 16, 2012 02:48 PM (7RBBe)

Go look at Gulf Oil Drilling... Administration was in contempt of court... and I think still is? (story has dropped into the MSM black hole of coverage)....

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 16, 2012 02:53 PM (lZBBB)

39 21...That's the Democrat's bread and butter-- low information voters.

Yep. .....they have succeeded in dumbing downtwo generations now. ...And indoctrinated them with "Vote your feelings" ...."Vote for who makes you feel good".

But no one likes to feel like a fool.

Our best bet this year, is to use that. ....Highlight how 'foolish' it would be to continue on with this StutteringClusterfuck of an Unmitigated Disaster of a president.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 02:53 PM (+5U+B)

40 This is such total bullshit. Why the frig does Obama's illiterate signature need to be attached?If all the Congress is doing is saying, "No, this is too much like a law, and we make laws,"and is not in fact proposing and passing actual legislation of its own, why should that require Executive approval? The Executive branch is what fucked up in the first place!

Yes, yes, I know. "Welcome to Bureaucrazy 101, MWR." But Jiminy Christmas on a unicycle in hotpants!

Pitchforks and torches.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 16, 2012 02:54 PM (4df7R)

41 Exactly how is it the federal government's business to force private company workers to submit to this?
Dumbass.

Posted by: Daybrother


I think his argument comes down to something like, "Ummmm, uhhhhhh, ummmm, ahhhhhh, 'cause I said so Rethuglican."

You know, the standard highbrow, intellectual Dem argument.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:54 PM (sbV1u)

42 How could this country get so bent that we even have to deal with this kind of stuff? Everything this administration does is the antithesis of constitutional republic. Why do we allow this kind of malfeasance and give it credence by addressing it as if it's legal?

Posted by: Havedash at April 16, 2012 02:54 PM (F0WNa)

43 The rule by the NLRB will be unconstitutional simply because the two new board members were required to have a quorum and they were not legally appointed (non-recess, recess appointments). Funny the Demorats in the Senate didn't seem to have a problem with the JEF usurping their authority.

Posted by: Ammo Dump at April 16, 2012 02:54 PM (WUWb9)

44 Next up: All medicaid/medicare healthcare providers forced to become government/union employees. Think it won't happen? ThinkProgress has been talking about that plan for years.
Posted by: Daybrother at April 16, 2012 02:45 PM (WCuHB)

----------------------------------------------

I'm in the medical profession, and, yes, this is already being talked about.

Posted by: Soona at April 16, 2012 02:55 PM (RI6QE)

45 Sometimes I bite and get all indignant just to discover that it is a perfect parody. Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle

It's all part of being a Moron.

Welcome!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:55 PM (sbV1u)

46 NLRB suppose to mediate, not legislate.

Posted by: Ammo Dump at April 16, 2012 02:55 PM (WUWb9)

47 THE BALLS ON THESE GUYS!

Posted by: toby928 at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (evdj2)

48 America's slow suicide started many years ago. The Supreme Court will not be spoken well of by future historians. Assuming of course, that any future historians will be allowed honest opinions.

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (NVu2l)

49 In American Union, union joins you.

Posted by: Jackov Danielsov at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (OokNw)

50 Rule? Regulation? Executive Order?

When we don't condone the Rule of Law, as shown by Holder and other DAs not enforcing Law (because we have Prosecutorial Discretion, which now means we get to decide which laws to enforce)... when we don't BELIEVE that America is a Republic, not a Democracy...

Why bother with Laws?

So Let it be Written! So Let it be Done!... go forth, my Mandarins, and enforce my will.

Posted by: Pharoh Obamases the 1st at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (lZBBB)

51 The years I spent as a regional mgr of a national employee benefits co gave me enough insight into union innerworkings to last me many lifetimes. I could fill this entire thread.

The ingrained us-against-them anything goes to get the most anything and everything is unredeemable, unsalvageable, unworkable.

Posted by: Justamom at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (Sptt8)

52 37

How do I know you're really paranoid? You could actually be one of those carefree girls.

Posted by: Daybrother at April 16, 2012 02:57 PM (WCuHB)

53 So who is going to stand up and stop it? The GOP? Like they have stopped all the other Unconstitutional stuff this jackass has done? I just can't help but think that we're too far gone already.

Posted by: DangerGirl at April 16, 2012 02:57 PM (TByPk)

54


But this is going to be really great for fighting deficits, and for the budget, and people need to drink fresh water and drive clean cars so we and our children can lead happier lives.


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Bunny at April 16, 2012 02:59 PM (tcSZb)

55 The ingrained us-against-them anything goes to get the most anything and everything is unredeemable, unsalvageable, unworkable.

Posted by: Justamom


What I learned about unions as a Federal employee is that they have only two purposes:

(1) To do as little work as possible for as much money as possible
(2) Protect the incompetent

Everything else they do is just window dressing.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:59 PM (sbV1u)

56 How ridiculous is it that our country has progressed to a point where we genuinely need a Constitutional amendment that says, "Just to remind everyone, the Constitution and all the amendments to this point, and from here forward, really do exist and you can't just ignore them. Really. Pay attention!"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (4df7R)

57 Racial resentment is big money. Just like in 2008.

Posted by: Killjoy at April 16, 2012 02:51 PM (UF4HH)

Obama campaign also took off the standard Credit card protections like Address check, and code on the back of your card...

So ANYONE can give as much as they want, as many times as they want, and the only record is what they SAY their name is....

Posted by: Pharoh Obamases the 1st at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (lZBBB)

58 Second look at SMOD?

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (yn6XZ)

59 I have wondered at what point does this all have to reach for secession movements to really start picking up steam. C'mon intermountain west states, you know you want to get away from all of this federal BS.

Posted by: Arcadehero at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (mmHDH)

60 But this is going to be really great for fighting deficits, and for the budget, and people need to drink fresh water and drive clean cars so we and our children can lead happier lives.

Don't forget taking care of grandma. And more police and firefighters.
What else falls under the heading of "general bullshit platitudes"?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (B+qrE)

61 46 NLRB suppose[d] to mediate, not legislate.

Key words here...."supposedto".

The President is 'supposed to' uphold laws....not pick and choose which ones he instructs his DOJ to prosecute.

It is now abundantly clear why Barky studied the Constitution.....he is an expert on how to circumvent it, weaken it....and destroy it.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 03:01 PM (+5U+B)

62 What I learned about unions as a Federal employee is that they have only two purposes1) To do as little work as possible for as much money as possible(2) Protect the incompetentEverything else they do is just window dressing.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 16, 2012 02:59 PM (sbV1u)

--------------------------------------------

You've nailed it exactly. One may want to add that it's also, in these days, the face of Stalin.

Posted by: Soona at April 16, 2012 03:01 PM (RI6QE)

63 >>>This is what I'm talking about when I say Obama will become a tyrant in 2013

In 2013? Only then?

Posted by: Dave C at April 16, 2012 03:01 PM (ihrC7)

64 Good Ol union boys are pushing for a MI constitutional ammendment to get collective bargaining enshrined...I think they might be a little nervous about Right to Work.

Posted by: Red Shirt at April 16, 2012 03:02 PM (FIDMq)

65 Seems a bit sooner than that.

Posted by: Dave C at April 16, 2012 03:02 PM (ihrC7)

66 Don't forget taking care of grandma. And more police and firefighters. What else falls under the heading of "general bullshit platitudes"?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 16, 2012 03:00 PM (B+qrE)


A chicken in every pot, a house in the suburbs for everyone, and a high paying job!

Oh, and all the free birth control pills you can stomach!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at April 16, 2012 03:02 PM (4df7R)

67 2nd Amendment will be erased if Obama is re-elected.

Road Trip

Posted by: minutemen for Mitt (formerly trainer) until the JEF is gone at April 16, 2012 03:03 PM (Rojyk)

68 In 2013? Only then?

Posted by: Dave C at April 16, 2012 03:01 PM (ihrC7)

Obama sent a communication to us telling us he'd be... less constrained after the election.

Posted by: NRLB at April 16, 2012 03:03 PM (xAtAj)

69 All depends on what the meanng of 'quickly' is

Posted by: Bill Clinton at April 16, 2012 03:03 PM (SO2Q8)

70 Congress? Never heard of them.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at April 16, 2012 03:03 PM (FJP6/)

71 Defund, defund, defund. That is what Congress can do against the President. The agencies cannot operate without funds. Period.

Posted by: But why Daddy at April 16, 2012 03:04 PM (rz0yi)

72 I had a union grievence filed agaist me once for being nice. Yeah, that company no longer exists.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at April 16, 2012 03:04 PM (yn6XZ)

73 The ingrained us-against-them anything goes to get the most anything and everything is unredeemable, unsalvageable, unworkable.
Posted by: Justamom at April 16, 2012 02:56 PM (Sptt

Yeah, once the mob gets its fangs in, they never let go.

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at April 16, 2012 03:05 PM (NVu2l)

74 Government Unions are a manifestation of Cloward and Piven.....'overwhelm the system to bring it down'.

Parasites consuming the host. ....There should be no government unions at all. Period. Government unions are against we-the-people.....we, who must work even harder to pay the taxes that support them.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 03:06 PM (+5U+B)

75 Defund, defund, defund. That is what Congress can do against the President. The agencies cannot operate without funds. Period.



Posted by: But why Daddy at April 16, 2012 03:04 PM (rz0yi)

But you see, apparently the public believes these organizations actually do something good for people. Defunding dept of edu would be condemning children to failing schools donchaknow?

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at April 16, 2012 03:08 PM (xAtAj)

76
And, then we can go horseback riding, shirtless, through the valleys and tundras, together.

http://tinyurl.com/7ugadmo

Da!

Posted by: Putin to Obambi at April 16, 2012 03:08 PM (HOOye)

77 53 So who is going to stand up and stop it? The GOP?

Posted by: DangerGirl at April 16, 2012 02:57 PM (TByPk)


I guess all those Tea Party candidates that we put in office in 2010 <snark off>
But my patience is wearing thin waiting for the Tea Party class to start doing wonderfully conservative things...and I don't mean giving a little face time to the media every once in a while.

Posted by: Havedash at April 16, 2012 03:08 PM (F0WNa)

78 There's one thing that have saved numerous states against crimes like this and all of you in states that lack this need to start lobbying now. And that's "Right to Work". It's been OK's salvation on several occasions.

Posted by: Soona at April 16, 2012 03:09 PM (RI6QE)

79 Nice little Country you have here. Shame if something happened to it.

Posted by: Ruling Junta at April 16, 2012 03:09 PM (WCuHB)

80 22 Crybaby Conservatives.
Posted by: carlito at April 16, 2012 02:46 PM (7y0WU)

---------------

carlito likes him some tyranny for lunch, washes it down with a sprinkle of marxism

"tasty!" he says

Posted by: poor guy at April 16, 2012 03:12 PM (HOOye)

81 37 I don't know, these days it is difficult to tell the "real" trolls from the regular smartass commenters who are pretending to be trolls. Sometimes I bite and get all indignant just to discover that it is a perfect parody.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 16, 2012 02:53 PM (RZ8pf)
-----------

and if you cynically snark back - sometimes they cower and believe you, hehe

mind games

fun stuff

Posted by: poor guy at April 16, 2012 03:14 PM (HOOye)

82
Before you pass judgment on this, you should really consider what the 1%ers are doing to you right now, in taking away your freedom and causing the price of gas to rise.

Plus, you want to eat fish that's free from poisonous chemicals produced by Monsanto don't you?

You would have a different opinion of this if you weren't sitting on your ass at home, you can't possibly understand the economics of the whole thing.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Bunny at April 16, 2012 03:18 PM (tcSZb)

83 78 There's one thing that have saved numerous states against crimes like this and all of you in states that lack this need to start lobbying now. And that's "Right to Work". It's been OK's salvation on several occasions.

Absolutely, Soona. ....That's why so many people are moving to right-to-work states....that's where the jobs are.

The blue states have very little hope of right-to-work laws ever being passed there. ....Their best hope is if a National Right to Work law is passed by congress....something that has been a dream for years.

I am sure that if Barky gets another term, he will strike down right-to-work laws....somehow. ....He is already suing states over other laws that they have passed...and creating precedents that way, that can be applied to other laws.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 03:21 PM (+5U+B)

84 18 Next up: All medicaid/medicare healthcare providers forced to become government/union employees.


Think it won't happen? ThinkProgress has been talking about that plan for years.


That is why the government keeps pushing student loans. A crop of new serfs must be pushed out every year to support the state.

Resist we much!!!!

Posted by: izoneguy at April 16, 2012 03:21 PM (hbRed)

85 It is now abundantly clear why Barky studied the Constitution.....he is an expert on how to circumvent it, weaken it....and destroy it.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 03:01 PM (+5U+B)

Ahhh... crap... you figured it out... it was all Opposition Research...

Posted by: Secret Funder of Obama in College at April 16, 2012 03:23 PM (lZBBB)

86 Before you pass judgment on this, you should really consider what the
1%ers are doing to you right now, in taking away your freedom and
causing the price of gas to rise.

Obviously you must mean the 1% of people that are in government that get to pass laws on the rest of us that we get no say on and that the bureaucrats often exempt themselves from or are doing something just to benefit themselves so they and their friends rake in cash on. Because that is how the system should work, isn't it?


Posted by: Arcadehero at April 16, 2012 03:25 PM (mmHDH)

87 I had that first part in italics when posted but didn't show up as such. Whoops

Posted by: Arcadehero at April 16, 2012 03:26 PM (mmHDH)

88 The unions are dying and they know it. The only way they can get members is by sheer intimidation. At my workplace (government) they want to decertify the SEIU. Everyone knows, except the diehards, that they are a bunch of thugs who do nothing but take our money in return for zip. The usual suspects are the ones who support the union.

Posted by: mpfs at April 16, 2012 03:27 PM (iYbLN)

89

I think we need to take more influence from other countries, take the Maldives for instance.

When Margaret Thatcher busted up the unions, she attacked the Maldives to take attention away from her unmitigated attack.

It's just one of those, uh uhhhhhhhhhh, things.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Bunny at April 16, 2012 03:32 PM (tcSZb)

90 Was it the AFLCIO who unionized the airport TSA workers? ....Or was that the SEIU.

It seems like it should be illegal for a private sector Mega-Union to come in and unionize government workers. The AFLCIO even controls the actors union now. ....Private sector union thugs, in control of government workers...is a dangerous scenario for ustaxpayers.

Posted by: wheatie at April 16, 2012 03:34 PM (+5U+B)

91 Reads somewhat conspiratorial, and this is not the hill to die on.

Posted by: nip at April 16, 2012 03:36 PM (uRVaX)

92 The Maldives have always punched above their weight.

Posted by: toby928 at April 16, 2012 03:40 PM (evdj2)

93 "Before you pass judgment on this, you should really consider what the 1%ers are doing to you right now, in taking away your freedom and causing the price of gas to rise.

Plus, you want to eat fish that's free from poisonous chemicals produced by Monsanto don't you?

You would have a different opinion of this if you weren't sitting on your ass at home, you can't possibly understand the economics of the whole thing."

Any good and necessary regulation that solves more problems than it creates, can wait for Congress to endorse it, instead of being imposed on a country by bureaucrats after a six-month commentary period.

We no longer have expert regulation of specific aspects of commerce at the demand of Congress. We have a King who declares government is the source of all economic wealth, and the arbiter without reserve.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at April 16, 2012 03:52 PM (3GtyG)

94 Obama Campaign Makes $10 Million Off The Corpse Of Trayvon Martin.

That's nothin' compared to what them Skittle Folk made!

Posted by: Toure at April 16, 2012 04:08 PM (d3TO3)

95 We are already in a soft tyranny, and the GOP shows no interest in reversing that. The nation will become more tyrannical no matter which person gets elected, though it will happen faster and more obviously with Obama.

"Vote Romney: he'll slow it down a little."

Posted by: cranky-d at April 16, 2012 04:09 PM (YmYM4)

96 We no longer have expert regulation of specific aspects of commerce at the demand of Congress. We have a King who declares government is the source of all economic wealth, and the arbiter without reserve.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at April 16, 2012 03:52 PM (3GtyG)

Yep, Exhibit 1: Gibson Guitars. They have been raided TWICE by the Feds, with property confiscated both times, with no charges filed... while their competitors who use the EXACT same wood Gibson uses, have had no problems at all with the feds.

Posted by: Secret Funder of Obama in College at April 16, 2012 04:18 PM (lZBBB)

97 This ship sailed into the sunset eons ago. Anyone who runs a business can tell you that they must every day worry about being in compliance with some draconian or nonsensical rule promulgated by some nameless, unaccountable, clueless bureaucrat or risk fines, shutdowns, lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc. ,and entire armies of lawyers have sprung up just to "assist" the hapless business owner to stay in line. There is no fighting back against this. SCOAMF has simply taken what's already happening and added an extra dollop of "screw you" Chicago style politics to the mix. Are we boned? You betcha.

Posted by: Natasha at April 16, 2012 04:18 PM (pyYXJ)

98 "Vote Romney: he'll slow it down a little."

Posted by: cranky-d at April 16, 2012 04:09 PM (YmYM4)

Yep, when the only choices are between a quick death by blunt force trauma, and a slow bleeding to death... we need a paradigm shift.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 16, 2012 04:20 PM (lZBBB)

99 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at April 16, 2012 04:28 PM (7W3wI)

100 this rule will destroy unions going forward ...
Why you ask ...
Well, going forward businesses will have to preemtively educate their workers on what a bad deal a union would be ... they won't have time once a union rears its ugly head so they'll have to educate early and often ...
In the future more and more workers will reject union representation ...

Posted by: JeffC at April 16, 2012 05:24 PM (A3tpD)

101
Not just an unconstitutional regulation, but a regulation created by bureaucrats appointed illegally, via a "recess" appointment made when Congress was still in session. None of this should matter because those clowns have no more authority, legally, than you or I do. Yet here we are.

Posted by: Brown Line at April 16, 2012 07:51 PM (II+jc)

102 isuzu filter, capertillar filter

Posted by: perkins filter at April 16, 2012 11:05 PM (9hLZy)

103 Having lived through three Union campaigns, I have seen how ugly they get. They don't want to give you time, because folks start seeing their true colors if they are around too long. A lot of money is at stake, and if it takes thuggery to win, they won't hesitate to use it.

I pray that Congress is able to stop this in its tracks.

Posted by: beaglebabe at April 17, 2012 01:22 AM (qwiuN)

104 This abdication of Congressional power to executive regulatory bureaucracies started when the Supreme Court when belly up over the Court packing scheme. The NLRB isn't even the worst of it under Obama. I've been banging the drum on this as the greatest systemic threat to our democracy for some time. See: End the Tyranny - Stop Regulation Without Representation. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-tyranny-no-regulation-without.html

Posted by: GW at April 17, 2012 03:46 PM (vW0j1)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0196 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0063 seconds, 112 records returned.
Page size 75 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat