3 ms·
It Congress wants to change the law, they can. It's up to congress, not the administration, to make law. For decades it seems Congress has largely abdicated its
by Molitor5901 2y ago
It Congress wants to change the law, they can. It's up to congress, not the administration, to make law. For decades it seems Congress has largely abdicated its legislative responsibility in exchange for the political ease of letting the administrative state, and the courts, make the law.
Just because something has "precedence" doesn't mean it's right. Banning gay marriage had precedence, but that didn't make it right. Slavery, segregation, all had ample precedence. They were still absolutely wrong then as they are now.
- kemayo 2y agoThat said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations. (Granted, by the same logic, they could presumably start adding some "these rules should be interpreted according to the agency's definitions" boilerplate to new laws, if they really want that.)
- Molitor5901 2y ago[flagged]
- kemayo 2y agoI don't think that slavery and fiddly details of how regulations are interpreted are really comparable. Morally or practically.
- Molitor5901 2y ago[flagged]
- foota 2y agoWeren't both of these problems addressed by congress, not the courts?
- lupire 2y agoWhat?? Slavery was ended (outsidr of prison system) by a law change.
- bobmcnamara 2y agoWhat??? Slavery was ended by crushing the south in the civil war.
- ImJamal 2y agoWhat??? Slavery was still legal in the North until the 13th amendment.
- bobmcnamara 2y agoproc95 wasn't limited to the south.
- dcrazy 2y agoYes it was. > That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, *the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States*, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free. Slavery was legal in the border states until passage of the 13th Amendment.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ImJamal 2y agoIt exempted some of the states that remained in the North. Delaware is an example of a Union state that had slavery until the 13th amendment.
- jessriedel 2y ago> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. It's not. There's long standing precedent, since well before Chevron, that Congress does not have unlimited ability to delegate its powers. E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). And this makes sense, because Congress is not a coherent unified agent. It's a messy institutions for distilling the wishes of the people.
- throw0101b 2y ago> E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928). If you want to talk about precedent, 1825: > It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself. * https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html
- jessriedel 2y agoRight, Congress can delegate details and implementation, but it can’t delegate basic legislation. That’s obviously a burry boundary, but it’s clear they can’t abdicate their powers in general.
- erichocean 2y ago> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers Yeah, that's a "no." Taking away power from voters and handing it to unelected bureaucrats is specifically what the Constitution is meant to protect against. All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, constitutionally. That power cannot be delegated to anyone, precisely because it would result in tyranny and disenfranchisement of voters (i.e. "us"). The only way to enable this is to amend the Constitution, which, if that's what voters want, they can do.
- techostritch 2y agoAnd yet, doesn't this give undue authority to the legal branch? like it just makes the legal branch the new administrative state. Reading through Chevron, it seems excessively logical to say that if a rule is vague, you defer to the people who made the rule to interpret it.
- epoxia 2y agoFor context. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas; who are still on the court were dissenting opinions on the gay marriage decision. Seeming to favor "precedence" when it's convenient.
- unethical_ban 2y agoThe reality is that our political system cannot do what you ask of it. It is reasonable to allow executive agencies delegated authority from Congress to regulate the details of things with implied oversight of Congress This is accelerationist or naive to think this is a good decision.
- cryptonector 2y agoArguably Chevron made it easier for Congress to abdicate its responsibility.