Posted on 06/21/2019 1:50:41 PM PDT by reaganaut1
On Thursday, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court called into question the whole project of modern American governance.
In Gundy v. United States, which concerned the constitutionality of a law requiring the registration of sex offenders, four of the more conservative justices endorsed a controversial legal theory according to which Congress lacks the power to delegate broad powers to agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Heath and Human Services.
For now, the four more-liberal justices have brushed back the challenge, ruling 5 to 3, with Justice Samuel Alito, that Congress can give to the executive branch the authority to implement that specific law. But a close reading of the decisions in the case — and the fact that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was recused — suggests that the liberals may not have the votes to turn back the conservative assault on Congress’s powers.
Federal agencies have been vested with expansive authority since the dawn of the republic, but the administrative state as we know it really took off in the 20th century. The rise of agencies like the Office of Price Administration, the Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency was essential to the prosecution of two world wars, the creation of the post-New Deal welfare state and the regulation of novel risks such as industrial pollution.
But powerful agencies have long generated anxiety among conservatives. The Constitution, they note, assigns to Congress “all legislative powers herein granted.” Very broad delegations of power from Congress to administrative agencies, conservatives argue, amount to an unconstitutional dereliction of Congress’s responsibilities.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court signaled that it was open to this argument. In two cases, the court struck down New Deal laws for vesting too much authority with too little guidance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I dispute the “most,” but there is a huge amount of unconstitutional stuff embedded into the law that will never be changed.
Given enough time, even the most benevolent governments move closer and closer to totalitarianism.
The delegation of powers to federal agencies is not the problem.
The assumption of unconstitutional powers and then the delegation of them IS the problem.
The comments at the NYT are a statement on why we don’t want the coastal, big city elites running anything. Although they are the smartest people in the room, just ask them.
Wanna rock your world?
Read NY vs. United States, I think it’s 505 US 192.
It is a long opinion, but the last 3 or 4 pages will take your breath away!
Mr. Fishbine: "One paramedic in a rig is illegal."
Mother: "EVERYTHING about this place is ILLEGAL."
“Yes, a lot of it is unconstitutional.”
Precisely correct. The United States was founded on the basis of individual states having control of their own states as they saw fit so long as it did not violate federal law as defined in the constitution. Our constitution has been ripped asunder by activist judges that knew full well their decisions were extra constitutional.
Our constitution defines us as a republic of individual states and sure as hell not a democracy of a nation. It is really that simple. The sainted Judge Thomas would agree, may he live long and prosper. He is a worthy successor to the also sainted Judge Scalia.
Delegation has no basis in the Constitution, it was New Deal BS - nowhere does the Congress have the right to hand over lawmaking authority to the Executive.
The other utterly un-Constitutional law making is from the Bench whether Federal or State. Mr. Marshall was just bitter that his nemesis Jefferson got to write all this stuff down so he thought he’d bone him with a little power grab. Marbury v. Madison should be explicitly reversed, and the applicability of any law dealt with on a case by case basis.
If a poll was ever conducted with the question “Is our two party system working” ? The response would be 90% negative. What is being employed by This so called coup d’ etat against Trump should not be viewed as against Trump but an impeachment of our constitution. .
Everything the man has attempted to get done has been blocked by a radical group composed mainly of members of the democrat party in top leadership legislative and judicial branches of government who view the constitution as an obstacle to their concepts of government intrusion on individual liberty guaranteed by it as they advance their policies.
DC has become the land of non-law.
_laws_ passed by legislators 51% or more majorities, or _judicial_ legislation or by _executive_ legislation, commonly ignore USConstitution limited powers of USGov.
Huge portions of the managerial state are unconstitutional. They are also oppressive. They exist to harass and harm normal people while protecting and doing the bidding of degenerates and weirdos.
Did Roberts vote liberal again?
The founders were absolutely amazing in being to figure out that someone within the government down the road, was going to sneak things in that were questionable concerning their document, the Constitution. This is why they created checks and balances. But that was based upon honesty, integrity, and the sincere belief the government was there to help the people, not themselves. Well, they couldn’t be expected to trust everyone could they?
rwood
The delegation of powers is absolutely a NECESSITY in many areas of government. Trust me — you don’t want a bunch of lawyers in Congress determining the design standards for the interstate highway system.
Alito??? Not good.
bttt
No argument from me. It's the ASSUMPTION of unconstitutional powers (and the subsequent delegation of them) that's the problem.
Indeed. As an aside, last year my son graduated from college. Father Paul Scalia (Justice Scalia's son) said the Baccalaureate Mass and Justice Thomas was the Commencement speaker. Both men received academic honors. It was a GREAT day!
Regards,
Why the sudden concern? Color me suspicious. Return everything but defense to the states. Restore the senate. Term limits on every public office. Hey.. a girl can dream, right?
I dispute the “most,”
I sure don’t and never had.
None of the Welfare state is constitutional, and the usage of a particular Amendment to say growing food in your garden is the hook to say the federal government has authority over you due to “interstate commerce possibilities” is insane.
95% of federal government spending is unconstitutional and practically 100% of mandates passed by Congress or federal agencies are, as well.
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.