As much as any Republican administration, Mr. Obama's has focused narrowly on the costs of a rule compared to its benefits, and has for political reasons rejected rules opposed by business.
In July last year he delivered the official Peabody response to new Environmental Protection Agency rules, opposing limits on carbon pollution to deal with what he dismissed as "climate theory".
Positive liberty he defined both as freedom to, that is, the ability (not just the opportunity) to pursue and achieve willed goals; and also as autonomy or self-rule, as opposed to dependence on others.
The home rule it opposed was of the Irish variety.
EchoStar says it opposed the rule on principle, on behalf of consumers' presumed First Amendment right to watch any satellite channel they choose, even if it did not originate locally.
K. C. McAlpin, deputy director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which pushes for stricter rules on immigration, opposed the proposals to grant amnesty and increase immigration quotas.
These within rule-choices (as opposed to the choice of rules) are not determined by the rules.
Industry and states producing gas and oil have long opposed federal rules on fracking.
Other companies, including SSE, RWE npower, Centrica and EDF, were equally opposed to rules on reusing heat, although Scottish Power suggested the proposal could be adapted so as to exclude sites where it would be ineffective or unviable.
(He argued Miller v. Alabama, the case on which the Supreme Court ruled last week, opposing the mandatory sentencing of juvenile homicide offenders to life imprisonment without parole).
