"In the US, there is a prevailing belief that government agencies should be directly accountable to elected officials[.]"
In the US federal government, this is a constitutional requirement.
I haven't made it all the way through Prof. Bates' disquisition, partly because of the above. Granted, the US has over the centuries - primarily during the 20th Century - converted a limited government of enumerated powers to a central government of unlimited power to regulate *any activity* that might in the aggregate affect interstate commerce (which is to say, any activity at all).#
Thus much of the discussion appears to be an exploration of the nuances of different flavors of impermissible government overreach, which is constitutionally prohibited and therefore moot.
The popularity of the campaign to "End the Fed!" nourishes my eternal optimist, and as far as I've gotten through the essay, such a campaign would never be waged in the UK.
#Prof. Irwin Chimerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, citing Wickard v. Filburn. It baffles me how Hugh Hewitt calls Dean Chimerinsky a "smart guy" when he believes that Wickard v. Filburn was correctly decided.
I've always thought the easiest way to explode Wickard is to pass a law banning abortion with Wickard logic: sure, no single abortion affects commerce, but a million abortions together depresses commerce for baby food, clothing, pediatric services, bassinets, etc. It would be fun to watch the left defend the proposition that aborting your unborn child is a fundamental right, but feeding yourself from your own means alone isn't.
It's not metaphorical with you, is it? You literally expect (hope?) to see leftists' heads explode.
Your proposition is . . . intriguing, but I still see a difference from the situation in Wickard v. Filburn.
My fundamental objection to Wickard v. Filburn is that there was not a single commercial transaction in the activity at issue. Growing and consuming wheat entirely within the bounds of one's private property is **not commerce.** Roscoe Filburn's (widow's) activity, in the aggregate - even if conducted by millions - would still not BE commerce, which is why the language of the abortion known as Wickard v. Filburn ( <--- see what I did there?) refers to "activity" that *might* in the aggregate *affect* interstate commerce. But Congress doesn't have the power to regulate such activity, and *every* activity "might" in the aggregate "affect" interstate commerce. Irwin Chimerinsky ought to know that.
In the case of abortion, there is likely a commercial transaction involved in the procedure.
Well, it takes two to Quango, Minister.
"In the US, there is a prevailing belief that government agencies should be directly accountable to elected officials[.]"
In the US federal government, this is a constitutional requirement.
I haven't made it all the way through Prof. Bates' disquisition, partly because of the above. Granted, the US has over the centuries - primarily during the 20th Century - converted a limited government of enumerated powers to a central government of unlimited power to regulate *any activity* that might in the aggregate affect interstate commerce (which is to say, any activity at all).#
Thus much of the discussion appears to be an exploration of the nuances of different flavors of impermissible government overreach, which is constitutionally prohibited and therefore moot.
The popularity of the campaign to "End the Fed!" nourishes my eternal optimist, and as far as I've gotten through the essay, such a campaign would never be waged in the UK.
#Prof. Irwin Chimerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, citing Wickard v. Filburn. It baffles me how Hugh Hewitt calls Dean Chimerinsky a "smart guy" when he believes that Wickard v. Filburn was correctly decided.
I've always thought the easiest way to explode Wickard is to pass a law banning abortion with Wickard logic: sure, no single abortion affects commerce, but a million abortions together depresses commerce for baby food, clothing, pediatric services, bassinets, etc. It would be fun to watch the left defend the proposition that aborting your unborn child is a fundamental right, but feeding yourself from your own means alone isn't.
It's not metaphorical with you, is it? You literally expect (hope?) to see leftists' heads explode.
Your proposition is . . . intriguing, but I still see a difference from the situation in Wickard v. Filburn.
My fundamental objection to Wickard v. Filburn is that there was not a single commercial transaction in the activity at issue. Growing and consuming wheat entirely within the bounds of one's private property is **not commerce.** Roscoe Filburn's (widow's) activity, in the aggregate - even if conducted by millions - would still not BE commerce, which is why the language of the abortion known as Wickard v. Filburn ( <--- see what I did there?) refers to "activity" that *might* in the aggregate *affect* interstate commerce. But Congress doesn't have the power to regulate such activity, and *every* activity "might" in the aggregate "affect" interstate commerce. Irwin Chimerinsky ought to know that.
In the case of abortion, there is likely a commercial transaction involved in the procedure.