Delegated powers must be through the amendment process, not a declaration of a judge, not by a simple vote by Congress, and certainly not via an executive order.
So tell me again who authorized these 'special powers'?
Congress authorized these powers. Unless the court deems them unconstitutional, it holds up.
You need to go back and research Marbury vs. Madison to figure out where things went wrong as far as who decides what is constitutional or not.
Sam, you need to re-read M v M yourself. Marshall concludes with the observation that 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from the moment they are written.
We the people don't need no steeinking courts to decide our liberties.
Is there nothing that you would object to?
Congress has no authority to delegate or grant powers to another branch of government. That requires an amendment agreed to by Congress and the requisite number of States.
The Supreme Court has reversed itself numerous times. There is no such thing as 'settled law'. But the SC was never intended, not is it the only arbiter of what is constitutional.
You don't like my opinion? Try these on. . .
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it…"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.