Posted on 12/13/2025 4:38:55 AM PST by MtnClimber
During the oral argument over Trump v. Slaughter at the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan got seriously exercised. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government!” Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, wisely declined to respond. She went on. “Where else have we so fundamentally altered the structure of government?” Indeed. The 1934 Humphrey’s Executor case did exactly that as the New Deal got into high gear during FDR’s reign.
The Constitution defines three, not four, branches of government. Article I defines all the bits and pieces about the legislative branch. In particular, Section 8 lists the things that Congress is allowed to do. Section 9 lists a potful of things Congress isn’t allowed to do. All these serve the purpose clause in Section 8, which declares that the list of enumerated powers are to provide for the common defense (for all the U.S.) and general welfare (for all citizens). Nowhere does it create a carve-out for people below a given income level, in a particular industry, or above a particular age.
Article II defines the Presidency, and Article III creates the Supreme Court. Ultimately all the Inferior Courts are defined by Congress, and Congress even gets to tell the Court that it can’t rule on this or that. Articles IV-VII deal with other subjects, and don’t create any more branches of government.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (last clause of Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the power to do things that aren’t specifically listed in order to get the other stuff done. But the leftist Justices seem to want that language to allow Congress to do things that aren’t in the list of enumerated powers, ignoring the elephant in the room.
The key issue in Slaughter is the President’s right to fire Executive branch officials at will.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
I would guess that Humphrey’s Executor will be overturned.
How to effectively mismanage the managerial class I have no idea, except perhaps from the inside.
What does the title have to do with the post? Unless I'm missing something, the post is not positing that someone is advocating a 4th branch of government but rather the existing branches are not following the Constitution.
No, Madam - merely to return it to what it should be.
The point of the article is that a 4th branch exists in effect if not in name, has existed because of the 1934 Humphrey’s Executor case and that it’s existence is in breech of the Constitution & the path for it’s existence should be eliminated.
It can't be overturned because it was a unanimous decision.
Which is why Leftist should never be permitted to sit on the USSC.
They hate our Constitution and want to end it or alter it beyond recognition.
Leftist hate freedom and love tyranny.
“But the leftist Justices seem to want that language to allow Congress to do things that aren’t in the list of enumerated powers, ignoring the elephant in the room”
To me the fourth branch of the government is the low level judges who have been issuing injunctions stopping almost every effort Pres. Trump issues in order to MAGA and
Congre$$ just sits on their thumbs and sends out emails asking for $$$.
The creation of the FTC was the beginning of the quasi 4th branch pretty much rewriting the constitution many more were created by the commies starting in 1934. this quote is an excerpt from the Humphreys case:
emphasizing that the FTC was intended to be an independent, nonpartisan body of experts performing duties that were predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative rather than purely executive.
Current law shields the heads of certain key regulatory agencies from removal by the President, even though the President appoints them to those posts and their agencies operate within the Executive Branch. Humphrey’s Executor shields agency bureaucrats as a job shield to keep from being removed by the President.
In short, You could call them “little kings” b/c they can’t be fired without cause, presidents are stuck with them until an opening appears, which could be years into a presidential term.
Humphrey’s and the now-defunct Chevron Doctrine formed a protective duo: this duo “paved the way for the modern administrative state” by limiting presidential (Humphrey’s) and judicial (Chevron) meddling in agency activities.
Trump v. Slaughter at the Supreme Court. The Constitution defines three, not four, branches of government. The key issue in Slaughter is the President’s right to fire Executive branch officials at will. This is where the deep state, 4th branch of government lives. This is where the unelected officials reside.
Just like the Chevron Exception.
The FTC and the Federal Reserve. This could be Monstrous and Huge!
Correct, it is similar to when Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. was overruled by SCOTUS.
You're kidding, right?
I consider the 4th branch created with the Federal Reserve in 1913 by KKK Woodrow Wilson.
You're kidding, right?
Nope
The US Supreme Court is the highest court, therefore, the only way to overturn a ruling of the Supreme Court is by another ruling or because the court decides to overturn its own rulings.
But the Supreme Court can’t just go back through cases and look for ones they want to overrule. Rather a similar case needs to be presented to the court, and if this case interferes with the ruling of a previous case, the ruling in the new case can overturn the previous case.
That’s exactly what happened in the case of Roe vs. Wade. The decision, in this case, wasn’t re-evaluated (as the news may have made it seem), but rather the decision was overturned because a later decision the court made conflicted with the previous decision. The decision which overturned Roe vs. Wade was a decision made in the case Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Because the Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of Dobbs, this ruling overturned rights that had been outlined in the previous Roe vs. Wade ruling, basically making what was ruled in the previous case no longer applicable.
Can the US Supreme Court Overturn Any Ruling?
Technically, the US Supreme Court can overturn any previous ruling with a new one. But that being said, you don’t have to worry about the US Supreme Court going back and randomly overturning random cases. In order to overturn a case, as mentioned above, there must be a new and similar case presented.
Remember, however, that the US Supreme Court acts on behalf of the Constitution. This means that their rulings are based on what is featured in the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the US Constitution is an old document, and over the years, new interpretations of the document have come into play.
Because the original writers of the Constitution aren’t around, this means that different people can infer the rights outlined in the Constitution in different ways. This can cause problems as new justices are appointed to the US Supreme Court, as they may interpret the document differently than those before them.
~ https://legal-explanations.com/
Well, then you're wrong, as pointed out be Semper Vigilantis above.
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.