5 ms·

I don't quite understand Amazon's argument, isn't the NLRB operating on the delegated authority of Congress? Congress has the ability to create bodies to regula

I don't quite understand Amazon's argument, isn't the NLRB operating on the delegated authority of Congress? Congress has the ability to create bodies to regulate things and basically delegate its lawmaking power to them. It seems Amazon is arguing that Congress doesn't actually have that authority?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
There are powers that Congress does not have the power to designate. For example, Congress cannot create a branch of government that can simply declare people to be guilty of crimes at-will without a fair trial. But if corporations are people… and a fine isn’t that distinguishable from a crime… (Edit: For the down voters, I don’t get it. This is an actual legal case and argument the SCOTUS is hearing, right now, called Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. This doesn’t mean I agree with it.)
- voidfunc 3y ago
  Hmm okay, I guess I can sort of see how you might construct an argument here. I guess Amazon is hoping a conservative judiciary agrees.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  So can government create a branch that decides it can exempt people from liability? Isn't incorporation also regulated by a branch of the government. And I would argue bestowing limited liability on corporations is taking away a right from others (to recover damages). Is the consequence of this argument not that we need to go back to that Congress needs to decide on every incorporation and put it into law?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know - however, most commentators do agree that Congress would likely be forced to do a lot of boring work soon. Also see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, another case with potential to massively injure administrative offices by possibly overturning the Chevron decision. It also, well, threatens the CFPB’s existence.
phpisthebest 3y ago
This would imply that congress has unlimited authorirty to regulate anything it chooses, that would be a complete inversion of constitutional purposes which is to limit the power of congress to just a few things. now over the centuries bad judges making terrible rulings (see Wickard) , and a few poor amendments (17th being one of them) have allowed the federal government to expand well beyond its original limited powers. Thankfully and mercifully the current Supreme Court seems very willing to put the federal government back into its proper constitutional box... Amazon I am sure is looking to leverage that... As outside the terrible expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard does the federal government have any authority to regulate employment in any state... No where other than a massive liberal reading of the commerce clause is that power found in Article 1 Section 8 from which all congressional and federal authority is derived.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  The Wickard ruling is by far one of the most far reaching bad decisions ever made. The mental gymnastics required to justify it are inexcusable, as it boldly spits in the face of the 10th Amendment.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I think it's horribly bad application of law but a good ruling in practice. The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone. If the federal government had only one power I think it should be that. I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone. That kind of regulation is the core of the central planning fallacy. If people know how much demand for wheat there would be next year or what crop yields would be then farmers would know how much to plant before it would become unprofitable and you wouldn't need anyone to order them to. If that information isn't available then it isn't available to the government either and they're not going to make any better a decision, and in most cases it will be worse because they'll have less information than the people actually doing it or less reason not to be careless or hidebound because it's not their livelihood on the line. The purpose of the interstate commerce clause is that sometimes the victims of a misdeed are in a different state than the perpetrators and then the victims have to be able to go somewhere for redress that has jurisdiction over the perpetrators. But that only applies when the commerce is actually inter-state. > I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop. The sweetheart deals aren't a race to the bottom, they're corruption. If the state wanted to attract business generally then it would create a generally favorable environment with low administrative overhead or quality infrastructure etc., not create weird exceptions for one specific corporation. Those one-company deals never actually work out because their true purpose is to steal from the taxpayer.
coolhand2120 3y ago
> Congress has the ability to create bodies to regulate things and basically delegate its lawmaking power to them. It doesn't. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/ALDE_00001315/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/A... Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. By vesting Congress with [a]ll legislative Powers, the Supreme Court has viewed the Legislative Vesting Clause as limiting the authority Congress can delegate to other branches of government or private entities. In general, the Court has held that the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated.1 In 1935, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, on behalf of the Court, declared that Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.2 This principle is the basis of the nondelegation doctrine that serves as an important, though seldom used, limit on who may exercise legislative power and the extent to which legislative power may be delegated. In its 2022 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court provided further clarity on the nondelegation doctrine, emphasizing that a decision of magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.3

gjsman-1000 3y ago

There are powers that Congress does not have the power to designate. For example, Congress cannot create a branch of government that can simply declare people to be guilty of crimes at-will without a fair trial. But if corporations are people… and a fine isn’t that distinguishable from a crime… (Edit: For the down voters, I don’t get it. This is an actual legal case and argument the SCOTUS is hearing, right now, called Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. This doesn’t mean I agree with it.)

voidfunc 3y ago
Hmm okay, I guess I can sort of see how you might construct an argument here. I guess Amazon is hoping a conservative judiciary agrees.
cycomanic 3y ago
So can government create a branch that decides it can exempt people from liability? Isn't incorporation also regulated by a branch of the government. And I would argue bestowing limited liability on corporations is taking away a right from others (to recover damages). Is the consequence of this argument not that we need to go back to that Congress needs to decide on every incorporation and put it into law?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know - however, most commentators do agree that Congress would likely be forced to do a lot of boring work soon. Also see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, another case with potential to massively injure administrative offices by possibly overturning the Chevron decision. It also, well, threatens the CFPB’s existence.

phpisthebest 3y ago

This would imply that congress has unlimited authorirty to regulate anything it chooses, that would be a complete inversion of constitutional purposes which is to limit the power of congress to just a few things. now over the centuries bad judges making terrible rulings (see Wickard) , and a few poor amendments (17th being one of them) have allowed the federal government to expand well beyond its original limited powers. Thankfully and mercifully the current Supreme Court seems very willing to put the federal government back into its proper constitutional box... Amazon I am sure is looking to leverage that... As outside the terrible expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard does the federal government have any authority to regulate employment in any state... No where other than a massive liberal reading of the commerce clause is that power found in Article 1 Section 8 from which all congressional and federal authority is derived.

voakbasda 3y ago
The Wickard ruling is by far one of the most far reaching bad decisions ever made. The mental gymnastics required to justify it are inexcusable, as it boldly spits in the face of the 10th Amendment.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I think it's horribly bad application of law but a good ruling in practice. The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone. If the federal government had only one power I think it should be that. I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone. That kind of regulation is the core of the central planning fallacy. If people know how much demand for wheat there would be next year or what crop yields would be then farmers would know how much to plant before it would become unprofitable and you wouldn't need anyone to order them to. If that information isn't available then it isn't available to the government either and they're not going to make any better a decision, and in most cases it will be worse because they'll have less information than the people actually doing it or less reason not to be careless or hidebound because it's not their livelihood on the line. The purpose of the interstate commerce clause is that sometimes the victims of a misdeed are in a different state than the perpetrators and then the victims have to be able to go somewhere for redress that has jurisdiction over the perpetrators. But that only applies when the commerce is actually inter-state. > I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop. The sweetheart deals aren't a race to the bottom, they're corruption. If the state wanted to attract business generally then it would create a generally favorable environment with low administrative overhead or quality infrastructure etc., not create weird exceptions for one specific corporation. Those one-company deals never actually work out because their true purpose is to steal from the taxpayer.

coolhand2120 3y ago

> Congress has the ability to create bodies to regulate things and basically delegate its lawmaking power to them. It doesn't. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/ALDE_00001315/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/A... Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. By vesting Congress with [a]ll legislative Powers, the Supreme Court has viewed the Legislative Vesting Clause as limiting the authority Congress can delegate to other branches of government or private entities. In general, the Court has held that the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated.1 In 1935, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, on behalf of the Court, declared that Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.2 This principle is the basis of the nondelegation doctrine that serves as an important, though seldom used, limit on who may exercise legislative power and the extent to which legislative power may be delegated. In its 2022 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court provided further clarity on the nondelegation doctrine, emphasizing that a decision of magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.3