"It is vital because the framers believed that a republic— a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” " -Gorsuch
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf (Page 40)
"Admittedly, lawmaking under our Constitution can be difficult. But that is nothing particular to our time nor any accident. The framers believed that the power to make new laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty. See The Federalist No. 48, at 309–312 (J. Madison); see also id., No. 73, at 441–442 (A. Hamilton). As a result, the framers deliberately sought to make lawmaking difficult by insisting that two houses of Congress must agree to any new law and the President must concur or a legislative supermajority must override his veto." -Gorsuch
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf (Page 42)
YUGE. All these mandates and ridiculous laws will now need to pass Congress to be law. And if they do pass, it will be public record who supported its passage. Not some nameless bureaucrat.
This is the way.
ACCOUNTABILITY TO WE THE PEOPLE.
And then it still is the question whether a law is constitutional or not ...
Definitely the most annoying part about this is that they can continue to do the same things, since the only way to challenge it is still by taking it through the courts. One positive change is that lower courts can lean on this precedent to shut it down quicker.
Would that not also be supported by an oath keeping sherrif?
I mean, some laws are blatantly unconstitutional, thereby having no consequence in law.
Hypothetically, Congress could make a law saying anyone having conservative leanings should be shot on sight.
Sure there will be those who would act in accordance with such a law, but does that not also show nullity and voudance ab initio?
If no one would execute a repugnant to the Constitution law, would that not also clearly show where the power resides?
There is no real precedent here. The precedent that the power of executive agencies cannot be vague and must be specific is long-standing.
This case literally just applied a standing precedent to a very specific case to determine the subjective question of whether or not the wording was too vague. All future cases will continue to be case-by-case.
So what now. What does this mean? Do we get to return power to the legislature?
As not-a-lawyer, My guess is probably not yet but boy does this open up the lawsuit floodgates to regulations not supported by law.
Maybe this will help with the myriad of financial regulations that favor the huge irresponsible financial conglomerates over the retail investors..
This should have a retroactive effect to nullify any law or regulation imposed on the people by the unelected letter agencies.
Not a lawyer either, but Gorsuch seems to argue that agencies should not have the ability to legislate anything that has significant economic or political impact. It's probably a stretch to say all power will return to the legislature, but it will likely make CDC vaccine mandate type legislation impossible without proper congressional approval.
Anything that is punished by financial or imprisonments must be a laws passed by congress.
This also ends agency capture I think.
Will remain to be seen obvi, but Congress will no longer be able to hide behind some agency who declares something is or isn’t legal for the people. Maybe only people with back bones will start to run and be elected because they know they will not be able to hide.
Vaxx mandates
Cdc
That's exactly it. Whenever I criticize the existence of executive agencies, lefties will say that they've vital because they allow our government to act fast without going through all of the obstructions.
But those obstructions are the whole point. If a bill cannot pass through those obstructions, then it is not the will of the people. That's why those obstructions are there. But these people explicitly consider the will of the people to be a giant obstruction in and of itself, so I don't know why I converse with them.
And even more important I think, state legislatures will be even more important. Conservatives really need to win at the state level and eventually get together and call a Constitutional Convention and spank DCs ass
Do you kinda get the feeling that the Supreme Court is telling the Congress "GET BACK TO WORK!"? They've been like a classroom of kids who have too much time on their hands - they inevitably get into trouble.
administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” In other news, Canada is a shithole country