Posted on 09/04/2025 3:19:41 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
He should argue that the Federal Circuit Court was too narrow in its interpretation of the statute from only a domestic policy framework and failed to consider it in the Presiden't foreign affairs context.
-PJ
Sorry PJ, did not read all that. Did you ask it how many times the POTUS or Congress interpreted the word “regulate” to mean “tax”?
If government bodies have used “regulate” to include tax, than the exclusion of the words tax, duties, etc in the Act is irrelevant. Custom and practice says regulate can include taxation.
-PJ
An excellent discourse.
I sent it along to some FRens.
-PJ
Really informative. I learned a lot. Super job in formulating your questions.
Thanks.
When working with AIs, asking open-ended questions with follow-up elicits much more information, especially when using an AI that has a research mode and contextual memory.
-PJ
My kind of reading! Thanks for sending.
Now what would activist Judge Bores-Berg, whatever, do with this?
Much to be said for spoon fed Education!
Lack of any, at all, is proof all around us and around the world.
We think the well educated are comedy.
Awesome reading!
God bless America.
People were trying to figure out if anyone had won the latest Powerball. Hours after drawing it was still showing pending. Someone asked Grok and Grok said no one had won. Poster called it out and said it was a liar because it couldn’t know yet
It did. No one won.
“necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution.
Where is this clause?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26080986-slaughtertrumpcadcord090225/
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 25-5261 September Term, 2025
1:25-cv-00909-LLA
Filed On: September 2, 2025Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, in her official and
personal capacities and Alvaro M. Bedoya, in
his official and personal capacities,
Appelleesv.
Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al.,
AppellantsBEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Rao*, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for stay pending appeal, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion to expedite the appeal and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the administrative stay entered on July 21, 2025, be dissolved. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for stay pending appeal be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite the appeal be denied.
Appellee’s claims with respect to irreparable harm and to the public interest in a fully constituted Federal Trade Commission are rendered moot by the dissolution of the administrative stay and the denial of appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal.
Appellee’s remaining arguments do not justify expedition of this appeal.
* A statement by Circuit Judge Rao dissenting from the denial of a stay is attached.
President Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. The district court ordered her reinstatement. The government now seeks a stay of that decision pending appeal. That motion must be denied. The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, ninety years ago, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s for-cause removal protection for Federal Trade Commissioners. See Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). Over the ensuing decades—and fully informed of the substantial executive power exercised by the Commission—the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey’s Executor in place, and so precluded Presidents from removing Commissioners at will. Then just four months ago, the Supreme Court stated that adherence to extant precedent like Humphrey’s Executor controls in resolving stay motions.
To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court's decisions that bind our judgments. That we will not do.
At the link is the full opinion of the Court and the dissenting opinion.
Article I Section 8 (last clause):
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
-PJ
-PJ
THunderous Applause, PJ !!
I’ll read it in detail over the weekend, but throwing in the tariff as foreign policy, not merely as “tax” is a master stroke.
Send this to Trump’s people.
Send this to Trump’s people.
I don't have access to "Trump's people," but I do hope that someone over there reads these threads.
-PJ
-PJ
Review
Have you posted this over on X? It so, can you share your handle. I want to follow you! It must be shared.
I could copy and paste but feel like I am stealing your hard work and information.
FReepmail
I suppose you could post it on X and and cross-link to this thread here.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.