Posted on 10/30/2021 7:54:06 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate power plant emissions, in a case that legal scholars say could undermine Congress’s constitutional authority to delegate power to federal agencies. Some argue that such regulation — not just by the EPA, but in President Biden’s vaccine mandate as well — is unconstitutional because of a somewhat arcane legal doctrine called the “nondelegation doctrine.” This theory holds that Congress cannot delegate broad policymaking authority to government agencies.
Why does this argument matter? Our research finds that if the Supreme Court were to invalidate either the EPA’s authority or the vaccine mandate under this doctrine, it might unravel nearly every major law Congress has passed since World War II. Nearly every one of these laws involves delegating authority to U.S. agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
..........is unconstitutional because of a somewhat arcane legal doctrine called the “nondelegation doctrine.” This theory holds that Congress cannot delegate broad policymaking authority to government agencies.
************************************************************
Arguably (everything is arguable on FR), if the court would rule in favor of the “nondelegation Doctrine”, I contend their doing so would postpone the coming Civil War for some time.
Indeed, thousands of non sensical, leftist imposed “regulations” would be off American’s back. It will be like letting 50 lbs of air pressure out of a severely over inflated tire.
Gorsuch has touched on looking at Chevron deference of courts deferring to a federal agencie's interpretation of statutes. I believe the Court is going to start to rein in Federal overreach in these areas.
Exactly. That is the Progressive model. Have the Experts decide everything, and the "Experts" have to be Progressives.
The problem with this model, is the "experts" are fundamentally political, and they end up being the primary power, or the tools of those who appoint them.
Thus, almost all power is taken out of the hands of the people, or people they elected.
Jeff Bezos and his billionaire’s club have spent a fortune buying off Congress for ‘favors’... for decades. This change would mean they’d have to start over bribing a whole new group of ‘public servants’...
Unchallenged judicial overreach.
apart from the cowardly and political court that will never decide in favor of citizens over government, the paper in the columbia review uses these arguments for the post 1789 congress. only liquor control and military are possible delegations without much oversight. None of the other examples applies to a freeborn citizen of one of the several states. the outline below. Also at issue would be the original delegation to the secretary and then a handing off of that dlegation authority to another entity. That is the issue with the EPA. The secretary just let the various EPA NGO and officers make up the rules. That is cleary not constitutional. If we had a constitution in this country then you can make that argument.
Examples from the columbia law review of broadly written laws
1. The Police Power in Federal Lands.
2. Commercial Regulations. Patent law Patent Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat. 109, 110.
3. Commerce and Other Interactions with Native Americans
4 Social Welfare and Entitlement Benefits. army
5. Finance and Budget borrow up to $12 million to pay off the foreign debt, with the choice of prioritization among lenders left entirely up to him.3
6. Tax Assessment and Enforcement.
1. For foriegn ships inspectors on arriving ships “to examine the cargo or contents” and “to perform such other duties according to law, as they shall be directed by the said collector . . .
2. And liqour inspectors
7. Citizenship “establish an uniform rule of naturalization” with an expansive delegation.371 Under a 1790 statute, Congress gave to “any common law court of record” the authority to grant U.S. citizenship to any free white persons who had lived in the country for two years after “making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character.”
8. Powers Arguably Within Another Branch’s Constitutional “Space.” “
1. Act for Regulating the Military Establishment of the United States,”
2. The First Judiciary Act conveyed even more sweeping rulemaking discretion, vesting authority in “all the . . . courts of the United States” to “make and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting [of] business in the said courts, provided such rules are not repugnant to the laws of the United States.”380 Yet again, Congress said nothing about the content of those rules.
I deeply fear that.
How many chances has she had to undo the vaccine mandates? How many times has she refused? Answer: All of them.
Not holding my breath.
Some people include "the people," others include "the press," but if one is counting what is enumerated in the constitution, it's three.
What I find humorous is people accepting the implication that "checks and balances" amounts to some sort of limiting principle. All three branches are in cahoots to get as much power for the feds, as they can. The disputes are intramural, between the branches.
Put on your fire resistant pants, many Freepers have vehemently denied that Congress has that power ever since B1 Bomber Bob pointed it out.
That it would only go back to WW2?
Jeffery Toobsteak letting 'er rip. Or drip.
Wickard is the single case that I hate the most - it allows the Commerce Clause to be used by the Feds to control literally anything that they want to control. I bunch of little girls couldn’t make lemonade in Florida from Florida water, lemons and sugar cane, and sell it only to Florida residents, if the Feds decided to regulate the lemonade market.
The Founders would have started another revolution, just to rid us of Wickard.
Only Congress may write laws. Period. Exclamation point! Unelected bureaucrats are not sovereigns.
If congress can delegate its law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats, then states have the authority to create plenary state courts to overturn supreme court decisions.
I’m hoping there’s something hidden in this. The court didn’t support the CDC rent moratorium and I think the CDC screwed the pooch on that one. If one can point to any bureaucratic overreach, this one would be it. Maybe, just maybe, the court will use the EPA overreach to smack down decades of deference to faceless idiots.
Congress might be able to deny review of any given law. However, the implementation of that law must still be constitutional. I think this is where the court is going.
# SCOTUS is too cowardly to overturn and hamstring the runaway Government. Thomas and Alito might, but the rest will continue to support big government.
Yup. Even Alito is not willing to do more than tinker around the edges of the leviathan. No wants to be Scaliaed.
Shakespeare was right.
I seriously doubt they would do anything this dramatic all at once - more likely a more minimalist ruling that weakens it somewhat.
This is hyperbole to try to get the Court spooked into doing nothing.
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.