I am obsessed with Chevron and have been for years. It is a huge source of our current woes, a main enabler of deep state chicanery, and overruling Chevron would be a good FIRST STEP to reclaiming our Republic. The system as it is currently working goes like this:
Congress passes a law like Obamacare with stated (usually Utopian and retarded) goals, and at the outset identifies an "implementing agency", in this case, for example, Health and Human Services. The implementing agency for new tax law would be IRS, for environmental, EPA, etc.;
All kinds of "rule making" powers are then delegated to "The Secretary" which in this case is the Secretary of HHS, at the time Kathleen Sebelius;
The unelected executive branch bureaucrats then draft volumes and volumes of "rules" that we are all stuck with, because we have no power over these unelected people. These "rules" are what actually govern your day to day lives. It's the reason why Pelosi said "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it."
It seems so blatantly obvious to me that "Rule making" by unelected administrative agencies is totally and completely unconstitutional. Under Article I the elected representatives have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND DUTY to make law. They are not allowed to delegate it to the executive branch bureaucrats. Rule making is just law making by another name, and there should be no "rule making" by the executive branch minions whatsoever. Draft legislation and pass it, or don't. And then answer to your constituents. There should be no such thing as "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it." The statement is a flagrant admission that the legislature has totally abrogated it's solemn and exclusive right and duty to make law.
The discreet issue before the court regarding Chevron is whether court's should defer to the executive branch in interpreting Congressional intent where the intent is arguably ambiguous. For example, if the law says that it applies to "members of Congress and their staff" who gets to decide what the word "staff" was intended to mean? Does it mean someone's personal assistant or more specifically, Congressional Staffers? Under Chevron, HHS gets to decide because the law is arguably ambiguous. Overruling Chevron would mean that the courts get to decide.
As a practical matter, the proliferation of "rules" exploded after Chevron. Overruling Chevron would be a huge step forward. But in my opinion, the entire implementing agency structure needs to be dismantled. We are being governed by people we do not elect. They quite literally do not represent us.
We are being governed by people we do not elect. They quite literally do not represent us.
While I agree, look at a significant number of our representatives: Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Schiff, Nadler, Biden, Harris, etc. I doubt they represent the majority of Americans. Though with the level of election fraud going on I'm not sure they were elected either.
They are not allowed to delegate it to the executive branch bureaucrats. Rule making is just law making by another name, and there should be no "rule making" by the executive branch minions whatsoever. Draft legislation and pass it, or don't. And then answer to your constituents.
The “branch” that makes these rules isn’t actually the executive branch. It’s a semi-official 4th branch that was likely created by either the Civil Service Commission (1871) or the Administrative Procedures Act (1946) (not a law expert and accounts vary. Feel free to dig into the acts)
https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/
A big reason Trump wasn’t able to fire people who were clearly pulling shenanigans was that he isn’t legally authorized to do so because they’re in “Independent Agencies” rather than “Executive Agencies”. There are many laws around how those people may be dealt with.
Long story short, the “branch” drafting these “rules” is just a big protected, racketeered, unconstitutionally delegated bunch of leeches and petty tyrants who aught never have been allowed to have their powers delegated to them, and aren’t under the control of either Congress or the President.
Correct. The confusion is found in the fact that they serve executive functions (i.e., enforcement functions), yet do not operate under direct control of the executive/enforcement branch of government that was outlined in the Constitution. The simple fact that any FBI unit has ever been allowed to investigate any President without immediately getting fired should tell you that. Congress has that power to launch investigations into Presidents of their own accord. Seeing the FBI do it to Trump should have made us all laugh, but because they really are a fourth branch of government under Chevron, we all just had to sit there, as did Trump, and watch it happen.
Excellent post HD. I believe Chevron was intentionally adjudicated to get the exact result you describe. It and the SES are the ties that bind the swamp together. If we can loosen the knots here the entire facade crumbles.
Yep. They have been unelected since Cain (long time ago) times. We need to dismantle all these three letters agencies which have been unlawful govern us all of our lives.
I think part of the issue is also that who or what such statutes apply to is usually limited, but you wouldn't know that unless you look at every single definition in the regulations. And then there are courts that try to make the applicability more broad that it really is or should be.
Great comments! I was (reluctantly) a part of this. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). From OPA90, the Department of Transportation (USCG) was tasked with drafting the implementing regulations. Ninety (90) separate regulatory projects resulted from the OPA90 law. And within each of those 90 regulatory projects were literally hundreds and hundreds of regulatory requirements that had the power of law. As you stated "rule making is just law making by another name". I hated my 3 years in Washington, D.C. working on a "reg writing staff"! While the "public" was invited to submit their comments to the agency at the end of the day those "comments" could be ignored by agency delegated to draft the regulations.
Thanks for this info! Interesting to hear how the sausage is made LOL. The public comments thing is just a sham to make the little people think they have some say in government.
I used to think the administrative state was just a natural progression, sort of a side effect of a country that got much bigger and more populous over two centuries. I now believe that it has become behemoth by design. We are now a country of men and not laws. When you think of the millions and millions of pages of rules now in place, who isn't "guilty" of something? The rainwater on your driveway is undoubtedly in violation of some EPA reg. All they have to do is decide who they don't like, find the violation, and bury the target in litigation. The punishment is the process.
I am obsessed with Chevron and have been for years. It is a huge source of our current woes, a main enabler of deep state chicanery, and overruling Chevron would be a good FIRST STEP to reclaiming our Republic. The system as it is currently working goes like this:
Congress passes a law like Obamacare with stated (usually Utopian and retarded) goals, and at the outset identifies an "implementing agency", in this case, for example, Health and Human Services. The implementing agency for new tax law would be IRS, for environmental, EPA, etc.;
All kinds of "rule making" powers are then delegated to "The Secretary" which in this case is the Secretary of HHS, at the time Kathleen Sebelius;
The unelected executive branch bureaucrats then draft volumes and volumes of "rules" that we are all stuck with, because we have no power over these unelected people. These "rules" are what actually govern your day to day lives. It's the reason why Pelosi said "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it."
It seems so blatantly obvious to me that "Rule making" by unelected administrative agencies is totally and completely unconstitutional. Under Article I the elected representatives have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND DUTY to make law. They are not allowed to delegate it to the executive branch bureaucrats. Rule making is just law making by another name, and there should be no "rule making" by the executive branch minions whatsoever. Draft legislation and pass it, or don't. And then answer to your constituents. There should be no such thing as "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it." The statement is a flagrant admission that the legislature has totally abrogated it's solemn and exclusive right and duty to make law.
The discreet issue before the court regarding Chevron is whether court's should defer to the executive branch in interpreting Congressional intent where the intent is arguably ambiguous. For example, if the law says that it applies to "members of Congress and their staff" who gets to decide what the word "staff" was intended to mean? Does it mean someone's personal assistant or more specifically, Congressional Staffers? Under Chevron, HHS gets to decide because the law is arguably ambiguous. Overruling Chevron would mean that the courts get to decide.
As a practical matter, the proliferation of "rules" exploded after Chevron. Overruling Chevron would be a huge step forward. But in my opinion, the entire implementing agency structure needs to be dismantled. We are being governed by people we do not elect. They quite literally do not represent us.
Wowee. Thank you for this quality comment.
Top notch!
This should be the top comment.
By Golly Miss Molly, u/HelloDolly, that was a great comment. Full props!
A dancing frog for you!
u/#HatPepe
We have the best dancing frogs folks. Believe me.
u/#correct u/#trumpdance
While I agree, look at a significant number of our representatives: Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Schiff, Nadler, Biden, Harris, etc. I doubt they represent the majority of Americans. Though with the level of election fraud going on I'm not sure they were elected either.
They do not represent anybody, they have been unelected.
*selected
Love this post. Great info!
If I might clarify one thing:
The “branch” that makes these rules isn’t actually the executive branch. It’s a semi-official 4th branch that was likely created by either the Civil Service Commission (1871) or the Administrative Procedures Act (1946) (not a law expert and accounts vary. Feel free to dig into the acts) https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/
A big reason Trump wasn’t able to fire people who were clearly pulling shenanigans was that he isn’t legally authorized to do so because they’re in “Independent Agencies” rather than “Executive Agencies”. There are many laws around how those people may be dealt with.
Long story short, the “branch” drafting these “rules” is just a big protected, racketeered, unconstitutionally delegated bunch of leeches and petty tyrants who aught never have been allowed to have their powers delegated to them, and aren’t under the control of either Congress or the President.
Chevron will be huge.
Correct. The confusion is found in the fact that they serve executive functions (i.e., enforcement functions), yet do not operate under direct control of the executive/enforcement branch of government that was outlined in the Constitution. The simple fact that any FBI unit has ever been allowed to investigate any President without immediately getting fired should tell you that. Congress has that power to launch investigations into Presidents of their own accord. Seeing the FBI do it to Trump should have made us all laugh, but because they really are a fourth branch of government under Chevron, we all just had to sit there, as did Trump, and watch it happen.
Great comment. The administrative state is very troubling indeed.
This the new world order that they want, administered by unelected technocrats who are "experts" and make the laws for everyone else.
Excellent post HD. I believe Chevron was intentionally adjudicated to get the exact result you describe. It and the SES are the ties that bind the swamp together. If we can loosen the knots here the entire facade crumbles.
Yep. They have been unelected since Cain (long time ago) times. We need to dismantle all these three letters agencies which have been unlawful govern us all of our lives.
Excellent insight to something we all know has gotten out of hand. This explains to me exactly how it happened. ThanQ!
Awesome comments. Thanks HelloDolly for sharing! 💯❤️
Fantastic! 🤗
I think part of the issue is also that who or what such statutes apply to is usually limited, but you wouldn't know that unless you look at every single definition in the regulations. And then there are courts that try to make the applicability more broad that it really is or should be.
Great comments! I was (reluctantly) a part of this. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). From OPA90, the Department of Transportation (USCG) was tasked with drafting the implementing regulations. Ninety (90) separate regulatory projects resulted from the OPA90 law. And within each of those 90 regulatory projects were literally hundreds and hundreds of regulatory requirements that had the power of law. As you stated "rule making is just law making by another name". I hated my 3 years in Washington, D.C. working on a "reg writing staff"! While the "public" was invited to submit their comments to the agency at the end of the day those "comments" could be ignored by agency delegated to draft the regulations.
Thanks for this info! Interesting to hear how the sausage is made LOL. The public comments thing is just a sham to make the little people think they have some say in government.
I used to think the administrative state was just a natural progression, sort of a side effect of a country that got much bigger and more populous over two centuries. I now believe that it has become behemoth by design. We are now a country of men and not laws. When you think of the millions and millions of pages of rules now in place, who isn't "guilty" of something? The rainwater on your driveway is undoubtedly in violation of some EPA reg. All they have to do is decide who they don't like, find the violation, and bury the target in litigation. The punishment is the process.