Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Supreme Court poised to end ‘constitutional revolution’ that’s marred US governance for 40 years
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/opini ... ed-us-governance-for-40-years/
Published: Jan 15, 2024
Author: Thomas M. Boyd
Post Date: 2024-01-15 15:13:06 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 55
Comments: 3

When Justice John Paul Stephens issued his 1984 opinion in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, he started what legal scholar Gary Lawson later called “nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution.”

At long last, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that may signal the beginning of the end to that revolution.

Article I of the Constitution explicitly directs that “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” not regulatory agencies.

Yet Justice Stephens’ opinion found that “agenc[ies] may . . . properly rely upon the incumbent administration’s views of wise policy” in “reasonably” defining statutory ambiguities.

The legal doctrine that Chevron spawned became known as Chevron deference and former President Ronald Reagan’s White House counsel, Peter Wallison, pointed to it as “the single most important reason the administrative state has continued to grow out of control.”

Forty years of regulatory and judicial tumult has ensued, finally crescendoing to a point that has compelled the Supreme Court to intervene.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, from the District of Columbia Circuit, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, from the First Circuit, are now before the court.

Both are companies that fish for herring in New England and are family- owned and -operated, and both are subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management in federal waters.

The act allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to require herring boats, relatively small vessels that normally carry only five to six people, to also carry federal monitors to enforce of its regulations.

As a next step, however, and without any express statutory authorization, the NMFS decided to require Loper Bright and Relentless to also pay the salaries of these monitors, estimated by the NMFS to be $710 per day, an amount that can exceed the profits from a day’s fishing.

Both circuits validated this rule by pronouncing statutory silence to be an “ambiguity” that required Chevron deference.

SEE ALSO Starbucks Memphis 7 workers and Supreme Court building Supreme Court to hear dispute over Starbucks firing pro-union workers When it accepted certiorari in both cases, the court posed a two-part question for the litigants to address: “Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”

These two options reflect the thoughts some of the justices have evidenced in their prior opinions.

For example, in his majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, Chief Justice John Roberts commented, “We presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies,’ ” citing US Telecom Ass’n v. FCC.

And in his dissent in City of Arlington (Texas) v. FCC, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that “The question [of] when an agency enjoys [interpretative authority] must be decided by a court, without deference to an agency.”

In their concurring opinion in West Virginia, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, referred to the “explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970,” as well as former President Barrack Obama’s 2014 promise to use executive orders and administrative rules to bypass Congress.

He wrote: “The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and- phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”

Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his 2015 concurring opinion in Michigan v. EPA, asserted that the judicial power “requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws,” adding that “Chevron deference precludes judges from exercising that judgment.”

Marble stairs leading up towards the imposing entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington DC, USA. The two cases are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Getty Images Interest in this case has been immense, with more than 65 amicus briefs filed with the court by a wide range of interested parties.

Somehow, it might be fitting for this court’s ruling on the future of Chevron’s deference to also be rendered on June 25 — 40 years to the day after it was created.

When a decision will be forthcoming is unclear, but Chevron was originally released on June 25, 1984, days from the end of that year’s term.

A ruling striking down that overly broad grant of power to federal agencies is long overdue.

Thomas M. Boyd is a former US assistant attorney general, appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

A ruling striking down that overly broad grant of power to federal agencies is long overdue.

This has long been an issue that has stuck in my craw.

The Constitution grants NO authority beside Congress to legislate.

"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Any sufficiently advanced evil is indistinguishable from stupidity. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")

Original_Intent  posted on  2024-01-15   17:11:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Original_Intent (#1)

A ruling striking down that overly broad grant of power to federal agencies is long overdue.

This has long been an issue that has stuck in my craw.

I concur.

The Constitution grants NO authority beside Congress to legislate.

If the CONstitution ever had any authority, it was thrown to the winds with the cunning idea of "EMERGENCY".

"...EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:

PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW
NOW IN EFFECT DELEGATING TO THE
EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY
IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

REPORT
OF THE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
UNITED STATES SENATE

NOVEMBER 19, 1973

...FOREWORD

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

With the melting of the cold war--the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.

The Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was created1 to examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency that now prevail; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the termination can be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of governing; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.

In accordance with this mandate, the Special Committee-in conjunction with the Executive branch, expert constitutional authorities, as well as former high officials of this Government-is now engaged

Note 1: S. Res. 9, 93d Cong., 1st Sess...."

"...A - A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS OF EMERGENCY POWERS NOW IN FORCE

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

American political theory of emergency government was derived and enlarged from John Locke, the English political-philosopher whose thought influenced the authors of the Constitution. Locke argued that the threat of national crisis-unforeseen, sudden, and potentially catastrophic-required the creation of broad executive

(1)

emergency powers to be exercised by the Chief Executive in situations where the legislative authority had not provided a means or procedure of remedy. Referring to emergency power in the 14th chapter of his Second Treatise on Civil Government as "prerogative"; Locke suggested that it:

...should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power...since in some governments the lawmaking power is not always in being and is usually too numerous, and so too slow for the dispatch requisite to executions, and because, also it is impossible to foresee and so by laws to provide for all accidents and necessities that may concern the public, or make such laws as will do no harm, if they are executed with an inflexible rigour on all occasions and upon all persons that may come in their way, therefore there is a latitude left to the executive power to do many things of choice; which the laws do not prescribe.

To what extent the Founding Fathers adhered to this view of the executive role in emergencies is a much disputed issue. ..."

[[[To that last sentence, I remit what Patrick Henry said upon being confronted with this new CONstitution: "I SMELL A RAT", and in reality, George Washington's original title was "His Excellency", and it has been shown in other spheres that the new government was the Illuminati's first step in building their New World Order.]]]

famguardian.org/Subjects/...es/SenateReport93-549.htm

more here...

4um Emergency Powers Must Be Repudiated

" ...MOST AMERICANS HAVE LIVED THEIR ENTIRE LIVES UNDER EMERGENCY RULE, WHEN THE BANKSTERS DECLARED US (CITIZENS) 'ENEMIES OF THE STATE' IN 1933. (Arguably could go back to the war of northern (bankster) aggression.) ..."

"...“Our nation’s founders left it up to all of us—including those of us in Congress—to act as guardians against assault on our constitutional order. That means we must reform the National Emergencies Act to ensure that future abuse will not occur.

“Otherwise, as Senators Church and Mathias warned almost 50 years ago, ‘the unmistakable drift toward [a] one-[person] government will continue.’ ..."

"... In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death...

because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say: "But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."

What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads: "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."... "

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=273911&Disp=1#C1

=======================================

Congressman James Traficant's (R.I.P.) U.S. Bankruptcy Speech

The Bankruptcy of The United States

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303 Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only **** under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted ***a new form of government for the United States. ***This new form of government is known as a ******Democracy, ***being an established ****Socialist/Communist order, under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by *** transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: *** "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States." ...

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=270344

Interesting to see how this plays out, and I would be most interested to know if B'nai B'rith/SPLC and or the ADL and their ilk have submitted any of those "Amicus" briefs, but imo it's more like window-dressing. The so-called doctrine of "Emergency Rule" is a far bigger problem:

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens..."

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SenateReport93-549.htm

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2024-01-16   14:22:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#2) (Edited)

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.

This is when FDR declared the United States Government to be bankrupt and insolvent. The gold was called in and the ownership of gold was made illegal.

On June 5, 1933 the gold clause was abrogated, and all the cold coin and gold certificates were called in for $20.63/ox. It was then revalued to $35/oz.

The public ownership of gold was made unlawful. If you had a safe deposit box at the bank there was a Treasury agent there to greet you when you showed up to get into your box. A lot of people had gold bars in safe deposit boxes.

Then there was the bank holiday of 1933. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2024-01-16   17:10:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest