3 ms·

You're right, I shouldn't be having this conversation if I didn't have a basic understanding of the fundamental structure of the US government. Since I have a r

by Gormo 2y ago

You're right, I shouldn't be having this conversation if I didn't have a basic understanding of the fundamental structure of the US government. Since I have a relatively advanced understanding of that topic, however, we shall continue. So, the US Constitution distributes political authority among three distinct but co-equal branches of government. Legislative authority is assigned to Congress, executive power belongs to the president, and judicial power is the purview of the Supreme Court. The Constitution makes no mention of administrative agencies -- these are entirely creatures of statue law subsequent and subordinate to the Constitution, and did not begin to exist significantly until more than a century after the Victorian Constitution went into effect. There is no explicit authority for Congress to delegate legislative power to any other institution, and whether this is entirely legitimate remains a master of some debate. The Constitution further explicitly assigns judicial power to the Supreme Court, and in no way obligates the court to delegate its inherent duty of statutory interpretation to executive branch agencies, least of all to defer to those agencies in establishing the boundaries of their own statutory power. Finally, the Constitution enumerates the scope of the legislative power assigned to Congress, and explicitly reserves all non-enumerated powers to "the states or the people respectively". There is no basis whatsoever in our system of government for any single institution to unilaterally "regulate every facet of American life", least of all at the federal level.

freejazz 2y ago
What an odd response that is completely besides the point of what I quoted. I didn't quote you on the delegation of powers. I quoted you as saying no body of government should be able to make all the laws. You have advanced knowledge as you say, maybe you can explain yourself, then?
- Gormo 2y ago
  > I quoted you as saying no body of government should be able to make all the laws. Which is correct. Congress's role is to legislate on matters within the scope of its enumerated powers, as subject to judicial review, and absolutely not to "make all the laws" that regulate "every facet of American life". There are plenty of matters of law that are not delegated to Congress, and are reserved e.g. to states, and plenty of facets of American life that are outside the bounds of political intervention entirely, where people are responsible for making their own decisions in a pluralistic fashion.
unethical_ban 2y ago
1. Congress creates an executive agency called "Protect The Environment Agency" and tasks them with creating and maintaining regulations around pollution - air, ground, water, etc. 2. The PTEA makes a regulation stating that, per their mandate, all people must personally declare plastics are bad for the planet or else they get taxed $100 a year. This is clearly a violation of the first amendment. 3. You are suggesting that under Chevron, no one would have any remedy for this unconstitutional behavior? 3a. That a person would not have agency to sue in federal court to say this regulation is unconstitutional? 3b. You suggest Congress has no power to explicitly prohibit the "PTEA" from imposing individual fines related to speech on the environment? --- It seems from another comment, regarding 3b. you agree Congress can make laws adjusting the scope of agency power. That leaves 3a.
- Gormo 2y ago
  > 3. You are suggesting that under Chevron, no one would have any remedy for this unconstitutional behavior? Well, this example includes the agency acting in a way that Congress itself would not have the power to authorize in the first place, so this is a bad example. Statutory interpretation doesn't really matter here, because even if the statute did authorize the PTEA to implement this policy, it would still be unconstitutional, so Chevron wouldn't even come into it. Why make up outlandish examples, though, when we have the examples of the actual cases to look at? Loper involved a federal law requiring operators of certain fishing boats to allow for inspections to ensure compliance with fishing regulations. The agency tasked with enforcing that law decided for themselves that the statute conferred them the authority to bill the fishing boat operators for their inspectors' expenses when going out to make the inspections. Under Chevron, the court would not have be able to judge for itself whether or not the statute actually authorizes the agency to charge the fisherman for the travel expenses of inspectors, and would have to defer to the agency's own interpretation that it does. > 3b. You suggest Congress has no power to explicitly prohibit the "PTEA" from imposing individual fines related to speech on the environment? Of course they do, by passing a statute. Which is then up to the courts to interpret and hold the PTEA accountable to -- with the reversal of Chevron, interpreting that statute would thankfully no longer be up to the PTEA itself.

by Gormo 2y ago

freejazz 2y ago

What an odd response that is completely besides the point of what I quoted. I didn't quote you on the delegation of powers. I quoted you as saying no body of government should be able to make all the laws. You have advanced knowledge as you say, maybe you can explain yourself, then?

Gormo 2y ago
> I quoted you as saying no body of government should be able to make all the laws. Which is correct. Congress's role is to legislate on matters within the scope of its enumerated powers, as subject to judicial review, and absolutely not to "make all the laws" that regulate "every facet of American life". There are plenty of matters of law that are not delegated to Congress, and are reserved e.g. to states, and plenty of facets of American life that are outside the bounds of political intervention entirely, where people are responsible for making their own decisions in a pluralistic fashion.

unethical_ban 2y ago

1. Congress creates an executive agency called "Protect The Environment Agency" and tasks them with creating and maintaining regulations around pollution - air, ground, water, etc. 2. The PTEA makes a regulation stating that, per their mandate, all people must personally declare plastics are bad for the planet or else they get taxed $100 a year. This is clearly a violation of the first amendment. 3. You are suggesting that under Chevron, no one would have any remedy for this unconstitutional behavior? 3a. That a person would not have agency to sue in federal court to say this regulation is unconstitutional? 3b. You suggest Congress has no power to explicitly prohibit the "PTEA" from imposing individual fines related to speech on the environment? --- It seems from another comment, regarding 3b. you agree Congress can make laws adjusting the scope of agency power. That leaves 3a.

Gormo 2y ago
> 3. You are suggesting that under Chevron, no one would have any remedy for this unconstitutional behavior? Well, this example includes the agency acting in a way that Congress itself would not have the power to authorize in the first place, so this is a bad example. Statutory interpretation doesn't really matter here, because even if the statute did authorize the PTEA to implement this policy, it would still be unconstitutional, so Chevron wouldn't even come into it. Why make up outlandish examples, though, when we have the examples of the actual cases to look at? Loper involved a federal law requiring operators of certain fishing boats to allow for inspections to ensure compliance with fishing regulations. The agency tasked with enforcing that law decided for themselves that the statute conferred them the authority to bill the fishing boat operators for their inspectors' expenses when going out to make the inspections. Under Chevron, the court would not have be able to judge for itself whether or not the statute actually authorizes the agency to charge the fisherman for the travel expenses of inspectors, and would have to defer to the agency's own interpretation that it does. > 3b. You suggest Congress has no power to explicitly prohibit the "PTEA" from imposing individual fines related to speech on the environment? Of course they do, by passing a statute. Which is then up to the courts to interpret and hold the PTEA accountable to -- with the reversal of Chevron, interpreting that statute would thankfully no longer be up to the PTEA itself.