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 ...
Sweet, sweet, SWEET!!!
I’ve been howling about this ever since I first read the Constitution. If ALL powers of Congress are expressed in writing, then how the hell do they delegate so much authority without permission?
Congress (Big Bro, in other words) controls every little aspect of our lives, from the toothpaste we use in the morning to the fire-retardant qualities of the pajamas we wear to bed at night. In between are gas mileage, light bulbs, online gambling, all drug laws, transportation laws, tax laws, and I’ll stop here so I don’t take up all of Free Republic’s bandwidth listing the rest of the crap that IS NOT enumerated in the Constitution.
The opposite of freedom is laws. You can do whatever you want, anything, unless there is a law that stops you from doing so. There are so many laws now that anything might land you in jail. I want my freedom back.
Executing criminals was justice. Killing babies was murder. And the cost and count of Federal employees wasn’t excess.
Those concerns of which you state should largely be only performed by states, anyway.
YES INDEED!
whenever the next couple nominations can be made,
let’s make SUPER SURE that we get some honest people on that court who will follow our Constitution!
It is worthy of note the NYTs brazenly comes out on the side of ignoring the Constitution.
They have always been against limits on government power.
The major exception has been the First Amendment, when strict enforcement gave them significant power *over the government*.
Huzzah!
To get an idea of how over-governed we are,
the annual growth in the Federal Register
is measured in pounds, not pages.
One of the great things about Texas is the
Legislature is kept out of session so long,
the need to ‘do something, anything’ is
throttled down.
I fully agree.
If you want us to read it, at least cite the case correctly. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
a) is the Congress' legislation exceeding the scope of its Constitutional powers? I think the answer is unquestionably "yes," but good luck getting any couyrt to act on it until SCOTUS reverses Wickard v. Filburn.
b)Assuming the law is Constitutional in scope, is the law so vague that Congress is delegating an illicit amount of its lawmaking authority to administrative agencies whose power to "interpret" laws in promulgating regulations becomes tantamount to legislation by the Executive. I think here the answer is also clearly "yes." The courts' deference to agency "interpretation" is known as the "Chevron doctrine," and it will probably be overturned soon. According to Chevron, the courts should defer to an agency's judgment if the regulation appears "reasonable" regarding implicit consequences of a law. The real standard is that neither an agency nor a court has power to regulate regarding an "implicit" consequence of the law because then it is substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature.
About 90%.
That’s a legitimate point, but keep in mind that this country probably would not have grown west of the Appalachian Mountains without Federal involvement in transportation. The first National Road, for example, was funded by Congress in the early 19th century because that was demanded by the territorial government of Ohio as a condition before they would agree to join the U.S.
“The delegation of powers is absolutely a NECESSITY in many areas of government.“
Then pass an Amendment to allow it.
“Trust me”
Nope. Hard pass.
L
Most of the power belongs to the states or to the people...or so it says. Hah!
Starting with the unelected administrative state, which makes most of the new laws nowadays.
Imagine if EVERY executive branch regulation, per the Constitution, had to be okayed by Congress and signed by the President.
Problem solved.
Ask "Honest Abe."
ML/NJ
This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role.
SCOTUS has been instrumental in FedGov usurping powers not delegated to it. Makes sense that all three parts of FedGov would sing the same tune about their own power. It is ludicrous to believe a court would be honest enough to cabin the power of the beast that feeds it. They are all arrogant.
That said, an institution that can hallucinate homo marriage a a right to abortion isn't mentally credible. These are insane people with guns, and they itch to use them.
Well, and even more so, the insulation of government from the will of its masters, the people, especially given that most Republicant's are pussies. Congress can spout freedom-oriented rhetoric, knowing feral tyranny is safe down at teh Bureau of Minding Your Business (For Your Own Good), the BMYB-FYOG. If the voters get mad and toss the rascals out, the bureaucrats just cruise right along, and even if it's a Dem-to-Rep swing in Congress, the new class does nothing to reverse the delegation nor the damage done by the bureaucrats.
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.