Civics classes

[jp1]

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?

[Alan]

I think a satisfactory answer might require more specificity in the question.

[iris lilies]

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/constitution-101?keyword=hillsdale%20college&matchtype=e&network=g&device=t&loc=9022859&loc2=&sc=MK720PP25&tid=kwd-55452481&gclid=Cj0KCQjwtvqVBhCVARIsAFUxcRvOS2RwaP_Fi2ze_AS2 mclmLWbEt3h1tl19qMPs3rFv8cPiNlvldxoaAr4qEALw_wcB

[ApatheticNoMore]

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.

[Yppej]

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.

[LDAHL]

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.

[jp1]

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.

[Alan]

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.
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.

Maybe civics classes are in order.

[jp1]

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.

Maybe civics classes are in order.

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.

[LDAHL]

Didn’t Marbury v. Madison establish judicial review?

[jp1]

Didn’t Marbury v. Madison establish judicial review?

For constitutionality, yes. But that wasn’t the issue at question here.

[LDAHL]

They ruled that executive agencies, in this case the EPA, can’t create regulations for significant new activities without new enabling legislation. The opinion referred to something called the “major questions doctrine”.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The major questions doctrine was made up. Apparently noone referred to it except recently. It was entirely made up.

[jp1]

They ruled that executive agencies, in this case the EPA, can’t create regulations for significant new activities without new enabling legislation. The opinion referred to something called the “major questions doctrine”.

And that comes back to my original question. Where in the constitution is this "major questions doctrine" included? Nowhere. For supposed "originalist textualists" these justices sure do play fast and loose with the actual constitution. It's almost like they are, you know, just a bunch of effing partisan hacks who are making shit up to fit their desired outcomes.

[LDAHL]

The major questions doctrine was made up. Apparently noone referred to it except recently. It was entirely made up.

It originated in the nineties. The Court said Congress must speak clearly when granting agencies powers of great economic or political significance. I see it as a reasonable safeguard against bureaucratic mission creep.

[LDAHL]

And that comes back to my original question. Where in the constitution is this "major questions doctrine" included? Nowhere. For supposed "originalist textualists" these justices sure do play fast and loose with the actual constitution. It's almost like they are, you know, just a bunch of effing partisan hacks who are making shit up to fit their desired outcomes.

I don’t think it’s inconsistent with originalism to say the executive branch can’t grant itself powers in major new areas without authorization by Congress. I’ve heard it referred to as the “new wine in old bottles” argument.

[iris lilies]

It originated in the nineties. The Court said Congress must speak clearly when granting agencies powers of great economic or political significance. I see it as a reasonable safeguard against bureaucratic mission creep.
I often wonder what controls the executive office and those executive orders, and those actions of governmental departments. I guess it’s not really in black-and-white. Each president gets executive order happy.

[jp1]

I don’t think it’s inconsistent with originalism to say the executive branch can’t grant itself powers in major new areas without authorization by Congress. I’ve heard it referred to as the “new wine in old bottles” argument.

But, again, there are constitutional remedies for executive branch overreach during the implementation of laws. None of those involve the judicial branch. For the judicial branch to assert that they can pick and choose whether the executive branch has overstepped is a terrible idea considering that if the judicial branch oversteps and makes an extreme determination that something was overreach there is NO recourse in any way. Having the power of ‘the final say’ as the judicial branch does should mean that they are extremely cautious in utilizing that power. The right wing thugs on the court currently have shown an appalling lack of concern about this. We’re headed down a very bad path if the rule of law is subject to random overturn based on the political whims of a few hacks on the Supreme Court.

[Alan]

For the judicial branch to assert that they can pick and choose whether the executive branch has overstepped is a terrible idea considering that if the judicial branch oversteps and makes an extreme determination that something was overreach there is NO recourse in any way.
That's not true. In both of the cases which seem to have gotten under your skin lately Congress can make things right for you if they only will.


The right wing thugs on the court currently have shown an appalling lack of concern about this. We’re headed down a very bad path if the rule of law is subject to random overturn based on the political whims of a few hacks on the Supreme Court.I think we're actually going down a very good path if the Supreme Court stops giving rights through the Judicial Branch and forces the Legislative Branch to do its job.

To stay on your topic of 'civics classes' I think one of the most important points to remember is that each of the three branches of government are designed to provide checks & balances on the others. The executive branch does not make laws, Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court checks them both to ensure that constitutional principles are not violated. It all works well until people start thinking they're living in a pure democracy and limits on power only apply to others.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't at all think we are living in a democracy, I mean occasionally some vote or other might slightly influence something like a state level proposition for instance, but that doesn't mean I think we live in a democracy overall.

But what to call it? Minority rule works - minority domination is far more accurate in describing the spirit of it. Theocracy works (a weird doomday cult type of theocracy it may be too) but not everything is about a small portion of the populations religious beliefs being imposed on everyone, but that's part of it. Plutocracy definitely is accurate - but a few of these rulings aren't about that, like how many plutocrats care about abortion. Kakistocracy might work. Corruption works. Non-representative non-democracy works maybe best of all.

[bae]

But, again, there are constitutional remedies for executive branch overreach during the implementation of laws. None of those involve the judicial branch.

Could you explain this a bit more? My general understanding is that when the executive branch oversteps its authority or abuses your civil rights, you generally proceed through the court system for resolution. What is the non-judicial path specified in the Constitution?

[ToomuchStuff]

Voting I would guess.
Both can take a while.

[bae]

Voting I would guess.
Both can take a while.

That is at odds with the "none of the remedies involve the judicial branch" statement. Indeed, the Constitution lays out a whole list of a variety of disputes that the judicial branch has, well, jurisdiction over.

[jp1]

Could you explain this a bit more? My general understanding is that when the executive branch oversteps its authority or abuses your civil rights, you generally proceed through the court system for resolution. What is the non-judicial path specified in the Constitution?

I already have but I’ll repeat myself. If congress thinks the executive branch has overreached they can pass a law saying ‘NO. YOU DONT HAVE THE POWER TO DO XYZ’. secondarily if the voters think the executive branch has overreached they can elect someone else to run the executive branch.

How would anyone think that nine random jerks offering up their binding opinion is somehow a better solution. And where is the part of the constitution that says the nine random jerks’ solution is what the founders wanted?