I seem to have missed class the day when the teacher explained how certain issues were so important that if congress wanted to make a law about them they had to be super duper specific. And if they weren’t, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court, then the supremes could undo the law.
Would someone be able to point me to that section of the constitution so that I can get up to speed on this?
I think a satisfactory answer might require more specificity in the question.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Jp, Good for you for identifying areas where you need improvement in your personal knowledge. Hillsdale College serves up distance learning resources for adult Ed. I would just warn you that the point of view of Hillsdale College would not be… yours. Probably.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing...oaAr4qEALw_wcB
The only useful civics classes are how to repair a Honda Civic. What the heck is Hillsdale College, like the whole UC system has extension classes.
Trees don't grow on money
I heard about Hillsdale recently and was told I could get a free magazine from them, but there was no way to opt out of them selling my name to junk mail lists so I passed.
I don’t think there’s a super duper specific clause anywhere in Article 1, Section 8, but they do say that any powers not specifically granted to the feds belong to the states. I think the Founders foresaw various parties trying to build Leviathan a smidge and a scosh at a time.
Judging from the replies it seems that I was correct that the constitution does not give the judicial branch the authority to veto regulations that the executive branch have developed based on laws duly passed by the legislative branch. The power grab by the justices is, frankly, breathtaking. And the fact that they made up a vague ‘we think this is a super duper important’ rule that will be impossible for future legislatures and executive branch employees to follow is pathetic. Supreme Court decisions are supposed to settle law broadly. The recent epa decision did nothing of the sort.
Before this decision we the people had a method of dealing with overreach by federal agencies led by the executive branch. We could select a new president who would put new people in charge of those agencies. Now we have nine unelected, lifetime appointed people who can say ‘nope’ to anything the executive branch does based on nothing other than their whims.
The only good thing that will come out of this court is that future law students will have an abundance of new anti-canon cases to study.
I believe the crux of the recent EPA decision is that the agency was found to have exceeded the authority given it by the legislative branch. The fix is for the legislature to give the administrative state authority to do the specific thing it desires rather than just accept that administrative agencies have unlimited authority, without oversite by the people or their duly elected representatives.Originally Posted by jp1
Maybe civics classes are in order.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Since the legislative branch passed the law in the first place it seems logical to me that they would be the appropriate arbiters of whether an executive branch agency was exceeding the authority they were given. Especially considering that that's what the constitution says.
Didn’t Marbury v. Madison establish judicial review?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote