SCotUS removal of Chevron Defense, a step towards nullifying three letter agencies..
(www.scotusblog.com)
🔍 Notable
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
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.
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.
Great comment. The administrative state is very troubling indeed.