Been a little busy this afternoon and evening – the evening with starting on the Christmas decor both inside and outside of the house. Here are a few pictures I took of the way the lights outside look, and how my Christmas tree looks.
How many of you already have your Christmas decorations up?
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey writes about the efforts of the Republican minority in the Senate to defeat the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to gain via regulation what the environmental left couldn’t achieve via legislation: a cap-and-trade system and other onerous, economy killing “environmental” regulations. Their strategy involves the use of a little known procedure created in the 90s, called the Congressional Review Act. Ed quotes from a Politico article; see if you can spot the problem:
The law lets sponsors skip Senate filibusters, meaning Republicans don’t have to negotiate with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for a floor vote or secure the tricky 60 votes typically needed to do anything in the Senate.
The House doesn’t have the same expedited procedures, but it’s assumed the GOP majority would have little trouble mustering the votes needed to pass disapproval resolutions.
A spate of contentious EPA rules that are soon to be finalized could be prime targets, including the national air quality standard for ozone, toxic emission limits for industrial boilers and a pending decision about whether to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste.
“We’re not going to let EPA regulate what they’ve been unable to legislate. And if I’m chairman, we’re going to have a very aggressive, proactive schedule,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the likely incoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told POLITICO.
Note the highlighted portions. What’s being described is a legislative veto, a controversial procedure that was never envisioned in the Constitution by the Framers. Let’s back up a minute for some groundwork. Article 1, section 1 of the US Constitution reads:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The power to disapprove laws, the veto, is not part of the powers assigned to Congress: it is assigned to the President (oddly, via Article 1) and is considered an Executive power. Several court cases (such as INS v Chadha), have held that the legislative veto is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers by encroaching on the Executive’s turf. At the same time, Congress, the lawmaking body, has ceded to the EPA, a part of the Executive Branch, the authority to write regulations (effectively laws; you can be punished for violating them) subject to Congress’ disapproval.
This is a role reversal that violates the Constitution both by ceding too much legislative power* to an unelected body (the EPA) and by blurring the separation of powers by claiming a veto** for the legislature. It upends the intent behind the Constitution and does violence to democratic governance by giving an unelected bureaucracy the upper hand over the elected representatives of the People.
I’m certainly not saying that all regulations are unconstitutional; it’s perfectly reasonable that, within the bounds of enabling legislation that does not cede too much congressional authority, an administrative agency should write regulations needed to implement Congress’ will. Nor am I saying Congress shouldn’t, at this time, take advantage of the Review Act to rein in an EPA that threatens to go on a regulatory rampage. But, if a Executive bureaucratic agency has claimed so much power that it has crossed into the realm of legislative usurpation and, because of that, the legislature feels it needs veto authority, then something constitutional is way out of whack.
This resort to the questionably constitutional legislative veto reveals a serious problem in our democracy: unelected, bureaucratic, and largely unaccountable agencies have claimed too much power from the elected representatives of the people. Once this mess with the EPA is sorted out, the next Congress (as if it doesn’t already have enough to do) should look at either amending the enabling legislation for agencies to limit their power or, if need be, eliminating altogether those that no longer serve a useful purpose. It is Congress’ job to make the laws, not to veto a bureaucrat’s diktats.
*The War Powers Act of 1973 has a similar constitutional problem.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
For thousands of years, soldiers have known that taking cover is a good idea: the enemy might not see you or, at the very least, the cover would make you harder to hurt. Those have been the rules since before the first cities had been built.
That is, until the US Army decided to rewrite the rules:
It looks and acts like something best left in the hands of Sylvester Stallone’s “Rambo,” but this latest dream weapon is real — and the US Army sees it becoming the Taliban’s worst nightmare.
The Pentagon has rolled out prototypes of its first-ever programmable “smart” grenade launcher, a shoulder-fired weapon that uses microchipped ammunition to target and kill the enemy, even when the enemy is hidden behind walls or other cover.
After years of development, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, about the size of a regular rifle, has now been deployed to US units on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where the Army expects it to be a “game-changer” in its counterinsurgency operations.
“For well over a week, it’s been actively on patrols, and in various combat outposts in areas that are hot,” said Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lehner, program manager for the XM25.
The gun’s stats are formidable: it fires 25mm air-bursting shells up to 2,300 feet (700 meters), well past the range of most rifles used by today’s soldiers, and programs them to explode at a precise distance, allowing troops to neutralize insurgents hiding behind walls, rocks or trenches or inside buildings.
This is going to make life* miserable for the brave, brave jihadis of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Could it be the Army took its inspiration from Monty Python?
*Well, the end of it, anyway.
LINKS: Hot Air, which has a CNN video on the weapon from last year.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
With the recent swearing in of Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk, the GOP now has 42 Senators – and all 42 are flexing their muscles in giving Senate Democrats an ultimatum on extending the Bush tax cuts before the end of the year:
Every Senate Republican has signed onto a letter vowing to block all Democratic-backed legislation until the chamber extends the Bush tax cuts and approves a spending bill to keep the government running, Fox News has learned.
Throwing down the gauntlet, all 42 members of the GOP caucus are sending the letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning him that they will bring matters to a standstill unless he swiftly brings those tax-and-spending issues to the floor.
That means putting on the backburner a push to repeal the military’s policy banning gays from serving openly in the military, a bill giving illegal immigrant students and military members a pathway to legal status and an extension of long-term unemployment benefits.
“While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike,” they wrote. “Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.”
A panel of administration officials and bipartisan lawmakers is getting to work Wednesday to try to hash out a compromise over what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. Democrats want them extended for all but the wealthy, while Republicans want them extended for everybody.
It’s not just Republicans who are concerned about the way the lame-duck session became a dumping ground for campaign promises and wish-list legislation.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., was caught on a hot mic in the Senate ripping the lame-duck agenda, which was set exclusively by his party, as “rigged” and done without a discussion among members.
Aside from the tax rates, lawmakers must pass this week a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning. Election-harried Democrats opted against producing a budget at all this year, preferring to punt questions on tax rates and spending until after Nov. 2. So, the government relies on a series of patches to keep operating. Similarly, lawmakers must vote on a supplemental appropriation to fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The filibuster threat increases pressure on the White House to offer a more realistic agenda for the remaining weeks of the year. For example, if Congress doesn’t act on the tax cuts, it means Republicans will be in position to enact their own, retroactive plan starting Jan. 1 without having to make any concessions to Democratic demands for upper-income earners.
Good to see this strong show of unity so soon after the Nov. 2nd “shellacking” the Democrats took nationwide.
It goes without saying, though, that it will not always be this way. Senator Kirk, for example, has already signaled the ‘moderate’ tone I anticipated he would with his vote in favor of the senior Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin’s food safety bill, a bill that some hardline conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn opposed on grounds that it gave the FDA too much power but that nevertheless passed the Senate 73-25. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) was an original co-sponsor of this bill and voted in favor of it. This was one of those “feel good” bills that even some so-called “conservatives” just couldn’t resist having their names on, I guess.
Anyway, even with more than just moderate GOP Senators voting for the food safety bill, there will be times in the future when Kirk will side with the more “moderate” Republicans like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, etc – on the opposite end of the battlefield from staunch conservative Senators like Jim DeMint and Coburn. This same situation is going to happen in the House, too, with some newly-elected GOPers and it’s going to be really frustrating for those of us who have been brimming with cautious optimism over the Republican wins last month in terms of the opportunities that now exist to reverse the damaging, dangerous course the Obama administration and Democrat “leaders” have been taking this country on for the last 2 years (actually 4, when you think about the 2 years the left had control of both chambers of Congress prior to the election of our celebrity President). But just remember there are times when having even moderates in the House and Senate are beneficial – there is strength in numbers, and this line-in-the-sand by Senate Republicans on the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts is one of those times.