House passes bill to cancel all regulations created during Obama’s lame duck rule


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

I like this: The House today passed a bill that would allow Congress to repeal all regulations created during the last sixty days of the Obama administration.

Legislation to allow Congress to repeal in a single vote any rule finalized in the last 60 legislative days of the Obama administration sailed through the House Wednesday, the second time in less than two months. The GOP-backed Midnight Rule Relief Act, which passed the previous Congress in November, was approved largely along party lines by a vote of 238-184 on the second day of the new Congress, despite Democratic opposition. If passed by the Senate and signed by President-elect Donald Trump, the legislation would amend the Congressional Review Act to allow lawmakers to bundle together multiple rules and overturn them en masse with a joint resolution of disapproval.

What is disturbing is how few regulations Congress has cancelled over the decades. This is supposed to be an republic, whereby the rules are set by our elected officials. Instead, they have passed that responsibility off to bureaucrats, and when they hint, as they do here, that they might take back some of that power, the howls of outrage are deafening.

7 comments

  • LocalFluff

    I saw Gingrich on Fox several weeks ago saying that exactly such a law was passed when he was speaker in the 1990s. Exactly 60 days, leaving a gap of almost two weeks after the election, which I thought was strange. Maybe it was a temporary law? Anyway, it seems to be an established and expected way of doing politics.

  • Laurie

    While I don’t doubt the corpus of regulatory law established by the Obama administration at the close of its second term is, largely, at odds with the best interests of the American public, overturning said regulations in this fashion smacks of pure partisanship. What, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em? Sure this is more efficient in the short term, but it further erodes any opportunity to extend and olive branch across the isle.

  • Mike Borgelt

    Screw olive branches. No prisoners!

  • Trumpster

    There has never been any cooperation in Congress and never will be. Liberals will never accept an Olive Branch, unless it exclusively benefits them. It’s time for the adults to run the show now and clean house. Liberals are now at the kiddie table where they belong. When dealing with petulant children, you send them to their rooms until they learn to behave. There’s no Olive Branch when you are at war….and this is war.

  • wayne

    Trumpster/Mike–
    Agree on not cooperating, at all, with the Democrat party.

    -Mitch McConnell however, doesn’t think we are at political war and he is in charge of the Senate and Mitch has already proclaimed he will NOT waive the filibuster rule for judicial nominees.
    – Rinse Prius is going to be Chief of Staff, and the new Head of Personnel is a John Bonher acolyte.

    Mark Levin:
    1-4-17
    “Schumer says Dems will work with Trump only if he moves completely in their direction.”
    https://youtu.be/HblfdPkn7Mo
    (25:52)

  • wayne

    Laurie–
    Congress gave up huge amounts of their power/authority, when they created the 4th Branch, the Administrative State Apparatchik .
    The Democrat Party loves it, ‘cuz they enshrine their agenda in law, whether they are in power or not.
    The RINO’s love it, ‘cuz they endless fundraise against it, knowing full well when it’s their chance, they will just use it to benefit their crony friends.

  • Laurie

    (Aisle not isle, though no man/party is an island)

    If there cannot be genuine dialogue then, indeed, the form and function of the congress is just window dressing. Let’s avoid that if at all possible. Surely reason can show itself to be reasonable.

    If I may, the following comes to mind, “It must needs be that offences come, but woe unto the man by whom the offence cometh.”

    I’m not advocating compromise nor am I defending the system, I’m (hopefully) defending any future peace me might have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *