Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Communications Workers of America, and Public Citizens sued Trump on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to block the so-called “1-in-2-out” executive order.

The left-leading groups argue Trump’s Jan. 30 order exceeds his authority under the Constitution and will block important health, safety and environmental protections without taking the benefits of those rules into account.

Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

I think this situation calls for a prediction. Will some "so-called" judges get in Trump's way? Will the '1-in-2-out' regulations order be struck down or will it stand?

I don't think Trump has a chance with this one. I don't know any of the specific laws involved, but the '1-in-2-out' regulations order seems too illogical to be implemented.

One related question that I haven't seen anyone mention is why Trump isn't working with Congress on any new laws yet. I haven't heard of anything specific on that front, and it seems strange to me.

The left-leading groups argue Trump’s Jan. 30 order exceeds his authority under the Constitution and will block important health, safety and environmental protections without taking the benefits of those rules into account.

So let me wrap this around my head.

Decreasing government power is 'unconstitutional' ?

LOL.

Wheres Robert Down Jr. at.

They done gone full .............

a reply to: Profusion


I see that the replacing/redoing/reworking the ACA (Obamacare) is time and effort intensive and is promised to be finalized in this Year for possible signing into law in 2018 ---> Paul Ryan has served as Speaker of the House of Representatives since October 29, 2015.
Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan




the lefties/progressives...Democrats are still using the over burdened bureaucracy to destroy the opposing administration.... I posted in another thread that the 'Cloward Piven Strategy' will be used plentifully by the Anti-Trump crowd

a reply to: Profusion

I don't know that Trump's Executive Order is unconstitutional, but it far exceeds the bounds of stupidity and should therefore be halted.

"Well, we really needed that new regulation about screw heads being properly fitted. I guess we'll just have to get rid of safety harnesses and the law that stops companies from dumping toxic waste into the drinking water. Oh well."

originally posted by: neo96

The left-leading groups argue Trump’s Jan. 30 order exceeds his authority under the Constitution and will block important health, safety and environmental protections without taking the benefits of those rules into account.

So let me wrap this around my head.

Decreasing government power is 'unconstitutional' ?

LOL.

Wheres Robert Down Jr. at.

They done gone full .............

Yea, amazing isn't it?

Give us MORE CHAINS and LESS FREEDOM!

Good God, I pray for this cancer to take me the hell out of here as soon as possible!

The dems, progressives, anarchist, communist, liberals and generally clueless are so far for,

Importing our potential enemies.
Increased levels of terrorism.
Lower levels of national security.
Gutting military.
Nullify rule of law.
Trash constitution.
Increase illegal Immigration.
Increase tax load on middle class
Dumb down education further.

I've probably missed twenty other rediculous thing but get the drift.

And now make sure middle America chokes on regulation.

You guys are going to get destroyed in 2018 midterm with platform and ideas like that.

a reply to: seeker1963

Just proves how right Voltaire was.

It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963

Just proves how right Voltaire was.

It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

Yea.......It is the corporate lobbyists who actually write the laws and all our representatives do is vote on them. I guess those who think this is a bad idea now are okay with the 1% and the Corporations?

This is good news for small businesses who have been shut out by burdensome regulations devised to keep them from competing against the Big Boys......

originally posted by: Phoenix
The dems, progressives, anarchist, communist, liberals and generally clueless are so far for,

Importing our potential enemies.
Increased levels of terrorism.
Lower levels of national security.
Gutting military.
Nullify rule of law.
Trash constitution.
Increase illegal Immigration.
Increase tax load on middle class
Dumb down education further.

I've probably missed twenty other rediculous thing but get the drift.

And now make sure middle America chokes on regulation.

You guys are going to get destroyed in 2018 midterm with platform and ideas like that.

Most of whom you described don't vote God forbid if they ever did

It does on the surface sound stupid and depending on what our politicians do with it, it is stupid. However, I hope what it does is make the Politicians THINK first about enacting new regulations and actually discuss and study new ones as well as the old ones before knee jerk reactions to problems encountered. I actually think that is the real intent, to make Politicians think about things instead of willy nilly reactions to things.

progs, socialist, communist, gumming up government. Coming out of the woodwork.

They are setting a very terrible precedent.
Every time they do this consider the counter-action that will occur when democrats control the executive.
There are plenty of conservative judges out there.

Either the executive breaks these chains, or all future government becomes completely dysfunctional.

a reply to: Profusion

I think that both Trump and those suing him over this are acting out of ignorance. There is no way that Trump can know for sure that forcing the abolition of two regulations for every one passed will be a healthy thing to do. On the flip side, there is no way for those suing him to know that any regulations that are disposed of will automatically be harmful to anything.

I agree with Trump that we are over-regulated, but I also agree that such an arbitrary 2-for-1 rule can create unnecessary issues.

This is why I can't stand this type of absolute thinking, and they certainly shouldn't be "rules" at the federal level of a government. But, whether or not this rule is unconstitutional is really debatable.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It was meant to hamstring the Federal agencies who make regulations, which are separate from legislative law making.
I highly doubt the EPA missed something to regulate the past 8 years.
The regulations keep getting tighter and tighter, the goal post keep moving, this puts a pause on this.

originally posted by: jellyrev
progs, socialist, communist, gumming up government. Coming out of the woodwork.

They are setting a very terrible precedent.
Every time they do this consider the counter-action that will occur when democrats control the executive.
There are plenty of conservative judges out there.

Either the executive breaks these chains, or all future government becomes completely dysfunctional.

The republican congress and senate need to pass a amendment. All lawsuits against the president are null and void except when actually warranted. Thats the supreme courts job anyway.

I love how people pretend that removing regulations to add more is insane. I mean it's not like all 548 million regs on the books are necessary or even appropriate. I'm sure one could find plenty of waste in the regs as is. How bout that recent thread about there being a reg for the contractor doing sewer tie ins to source his material from a minority owned shop which the closest of is hours away. Is that not wasteful and stupid? Would we be OK without such a reg? Well there you go folks and I'm sure there are plenty more just as stupid.

a reply to: jellyrev

I understand the reasoning behind it, and like I said, I agree that the government is over-regulated, but a blanket, hard-line rule can and probably will cause issues or stop decent regulations from going through.

I'm all about de-regulation in many instances, but they should be done one at a time and with considerable debate prior to it. I'm tired of a government that does things too quickly and without enough thought.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well if there wasn't so damn many we could have a congressional review of them but as it is that would take so many years that by the time they were done and at the rate we add them there would be a whole new stack to review for waste. I think his goal with 2 for 1 is to put some pressure on those making these regs to have to on their own find regs they feel they can do without to get something more important in. At this point who could possibly be trusted and have the authority to remove regs that doesn't already have years of more important work going on in the first place.

a reply to: RickyD

Like I have noted, I understand that point. My point is that there is too much done in government without fully thinking through the effects that will come from the action.

Some regulations would take forever to go through, while others would be easy, but we can't let the fear of 'it will take too long' deter us from dealing with the problem.

a reply to: Profusion

Another foolish liberal rant,liberals are so set on destroying America,they try any measure to try to destroy democracy,bunch of jobless bums,living off someone

"Hey Doctor, for every new medication you want me to take you need to stop 2".