[RitchieAprile]

Its not the job of the SC to divine what lawmakers thought they meant when making laws. They have no buisness second guessing what elected legislators have passed, and barring
a true Constitutional question they are correct not to rule.

[CedarDave]

In this case it was Clinton who issued an executive order during the last years of his presidency.

[JRandomFreeper]

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-

Don't see anything in the Constitution about millions of acres of 'national parks'.

/johnny

[Tublecane]

It is exactly SCOTUS’ job to interpret laws. If laws require divination then they are not really laws.

What do you mean by a “true” constitutional question? Not qualifying for “strict scrutiny” according to Footenote Four? The presumption of constitutionality for only favored types of challenges is arbitrary. Nothing could be clearer constitutionally than that the administration is incompetent to legislate. Even if Congress has capitulated to it. SCOTUS is competent to oppose this.

Granted, SCOTUS’ capitulation is old news, so I don’t blame this bunch particularly.