7 ms·
Yes, the dog would still have four. The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people. If we want to
by citilife 4y ago
Yes, the dog would still have four.
The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people. If we want to change that, congress (the people's representation) can amend the constitution.
Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. The regulations didn't pass. The supreme court pointed that out.
Why would congress put forth these rules if they had already granted the EPA the authorization? -- because the EPA never had such authority.
- scarmig 4y ago> The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people :laughcryemoji > Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. There's no need to explicitly grant authority for authority already granted. If Congress wanted to change the scope of the EPA's authority, Congress could just as well have passed a law stripping the EPA of that authority. It didn't.
- lasc4r 4y agoCongress has been totally broken for years, now the Supreme Court will be.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago> The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people No, they invented that authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison[1]. Judicial review, the idea that SCOTUS can decide whether the actions of the executive or legislative branch are legal, is contained nowhere in the constitution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
- zosima 4y agoWell, the constitution grants the judiciary branch the final say on all cases of legality. So I don't think it's very controversial that they also have the final say on the legality of the legislative and executive branch's doings. Also of course, this is exactly the separation of powers, which is completely fundamental in all western societies.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoObviously it's not controversial now because that's how things have been done for more than 200 years, but the Constitution is far from explicit that they have that power.
- bumby 4y agoHow do you read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution? My reading is that it gives authority to federal courts to determine if a law has or has not been violated. What would the other intent be of creating a judicial branch? (Not said with snark, just curious). "You give (a) Authority to a system of federal courts to judge whether or not a law has been violated..."[1] [1] Findlay, B.A. and Findlay, E.B., 1919. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoThat's certainly how SCOTUS interpreted it, and a 200 year tradition of interpreting it that has made it so that most people will now interpret it that way, but "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" hardly makes it clear that they get to decide the powers of the other two branches.
- bumby 4y agoDevils advocate, if not the Supreme Court, then whom? Congress makes a law. The Executive branch executes the law. The Supreme Court interprets whether that law was broken during its execution. If you take out that third leg, is the assumption that Congress must revoke the law to provide a check/balance? What if the intent was good, but the execution was bad?