It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Decision Celebrated by Lovers of Big Government.

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Supreme Court Decision Celebrated by Lovers of Big Government.


Cass R. Sunstein wrote this Bloomberg opinion article, and he is very happy about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Auer.

Sunstein is the academic who not so long ago proposed that government enter chat rooms and other ‘Net facilities by subterfuge in order to propose counter-arguments to “conspiracy” theorists.

In this Bloomberg article, he points out that Auer principle has been under “sustained assault from the conservative justices,” because it violates separation of powers.

Now that the Supreme Court has just decided not to reexamine Auer – by refusing to hear a case that would scuttle Auer – Sunstein believes it has become settled law.

He writes: “For the next president — whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump — there’s a big reason to celebrate. The rest of us should be celebrating along with them.”

The Auer principle says that in these cases, and countless more, courts must respect the agency’s interpretation of its regulations, unless that interpretation is arbitrary or unreasonable. In areas that range from heath care to immigration to the environment, that gives the executive branch a lot of authority.

Enough Is Enough: Justice Scalia, Auer Deference, and Judicial Duty.


It is one of the most fundamental principles of Anglo-American law: No person may be a judge in his own cause.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s commitment to ensuring that it remained operative was vividly exemplified in his reconsideration and fierce criticism of a longstanding administrative law doctrine that contradicts it—and enables federal agencies to operate free of any meaningful public accountability or judicial check.

In a concurrence in the recent case of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn (2015), Justice Scalia expressly called for the Court to abandon a judge-made doctrine, associated with Auer v. Robbins (1997), which holds that judges must generally defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations.

“Auer deference” effectively places “the power to write a law and the power to interpret it in the same hands” and thus “contravenes one of the great rules of separation of powers: He who writes a law must not adjudge its violation.”

So allow me to translate.

Back in 1997, the SCOTUS in Auer v. Robbins basically said that government bureaucrats are legally allowed to to do whatever they want. As slaves, you and I, are not permitted to challenge these bureaucrats/agencies.

A BIG issue for Libertarians is with bureaucrats and government agencies. Why? Because they are able to create rules which have the effect of law.

Problem is, its Congress' job to make laws not a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

By refusing to hear United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Bible, the SCOTUS is essentially saying that unelected bureaucrats can continue to run our lives.

Theres no rational explanation as to how this is legal. Its government stealing more and more power, rubber stamped by a corrupt, compliant SCOTUS.

Make no mistake about it, Congress loves the fact that we are governed by bureaucrats. It means that they no longer have to deal with irate citizens.

If we approach our Congressman about a regulation/law imposed on us by a government agency, they can simply say, "I'm sorry sir, I cant help you. Youll have to make your appeal directly to that agency"...

I would imagine that Auer Deference will be challenged again but who knows when. This recent "ruling" was almost 10 years after the original case.

And what happened almost immediately after the SCOTS reiterated the fact that we're a bunch of slaves?

This:

EPA Just Declared War On Millions of Car Owners.

The power hungry bureaucrats in DC were waiting to see what the SCOTUS was going to do.

As soon as the corrupt SCOTUS ruled in their favor, they wasted no time in dropping the hammer.



edit on 27-5-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

The Executive Branch is becoming far too powerful and it gets worse with each President. Obama has sunk to new levels of ruling from the White House, but is only building on the garbage that Bush and Clinton got away with before him.

The Executive Branch and the DoJ already only selectively enforce the existing laws. They don't need the power to make new ones.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Supreme Court Decision Celebrated by Lovers of Big Government.


Cass R. Sunstein wrote this Bloomberg opinion article, and he is very happy about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Auer.

Sunstein is the academic who not so long ago proposed that government enter chat rooms and other ‘Net facilities by subterfuge in order to propose counter-arguments to “conspiracy” theorists.

In this Bloomberg article, he points out that Auer principle has been under “sustained assault from the conservative justices,” because it violates separation of powers.

Now that the Supreme Court has just decided not to reexamine Auer – by refusing to hear a case that would scuttle Auer – Sunstein believes it has become settled law.

He writes: “For the next president — whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump — there’s a big reason to celebrate. The rest of us should be celebrating along with them.”

The Auer principle says that in these cases, and countless more, courts must respect the agency’s interpretation of its regulations, unless that interpretation is arbitrary or unreasonable. In areas that range from heath care to immigration to the environment, that gives the executive branch a lot of authority.

Enough Is Enough: Justice Scalia, Auer Deference, and Judicial Duty.


It is one of the most fundamental principles of Anglo-American law: No person may be a judge in his own cause.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s commitment to ensuring that it remained operative was vividly exemplified in his reconsideration and fierce criticism of a longstanding administrative law doctrine that contradicts it—and enables federal agencies to operate free of any meaningful public accountability or judicial check.

In a concurrence in the recent case of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn (2015), Justice Scalia expressly called for the Court to abandon a judge-made doctrine, associated with Auer v. Robbins (1997), which holds that judges must generally defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations.

“Auer deference” effectively places “the power to write a law and the power to interpret it in the same hands” and thus “contravenes one of the great rules of separation of powers: He who writes a law must not adjudge its violation.”

So allow me to translate.

Back in 1997, the SCOTUS in Auer v. Robbins basically said that government bureaucrats are legally allowed to to do whatever they want. As slaves, you and I, are not permitted to challenge these bureaucrats/agencies.

A BIG issue for Libertarians is with bureaucrats and government agencies. Why? Because they are able to create rules which have the effect of law.

Problem is, its Congress' job to make laws not a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

By refusing to hear United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Bible, the SCOTUS is essentially saying that unelected bureaucrats can continue to run our lives.

Theres no rational explanation as to how this is legal. Its government stealing more and more power, rubber stamped by a corrupt, compliant SCOTUS.

Make no mistake about it, Congress loves the fact that we are governed by bureaucrats. It means that they no longer have to deal with irate citizens.

If we approach our Congressman about a regulation/law imposed on us by a government agency, they can simply say, "I'm sorry sir, I cant help you. Youll have to make your appeal directly to that agency"...

I would imagine that Auer Deference will be challenged again but who knows when. This recent "ruling" was almost 10 years after the original case.

And what happened almost immediately after the SCOTS reiterated the fact that we're a bunch of slaves?

This:

EPA Just Declared War On Millions of Car Owners.

The power hungry bureaucrats in DC were waiting to see what the SCOTUS was going to do.

As soon as the corrupt SCOTUS ruled in their favor, they wasted no time in lowering the boot.




The average american really has no idea how these unelected bureaucrats control their lives with mindless regulations.

The thing about these alphabet bureaucracies is that they focus on creating more and more regulations. It is what they do. The efficacy of the regulations are of no concern, just that they regulate to justify their existence. If people really understood what this nonsense cost them, they'd be outraged.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I was against giving the state more power for 'climate change' before.

I am even more so inclined to fight it even harder after that tidbit.

They get to make it up as they go along, and there is no check to that power WHATSOEVER.

Oh hell no,



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I'm curious. Do you think there is no place for such regulation at all? Or do you think that the legislative branch should be passing laws instead of there being agencies which create the regulations.

Medical regulations, environmental regulations, transportation regulations, communications regulations. Does Congress have the ability to legislate such matters? Is Congress nimble enough to do so, realizing that circumstances (technology and information) can change quite rapidly?

The legislative and executive branches of government have delegated authority to these agencies for a reason. The legislative and executive branches of government determine that scope of authority. That authority can be expanded and/or limited.


edit on 5/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I'm curious. Do you think there is no place for such regulation at all? Or do you think that the legislative branch should be passing laws instead of there being agencies which create the regulations.

Medical regulations, environmental regulations, transportation regulations, communications regulations. Does Congress have the ability to legislate such matters? Is Congress nimble enough to do so, realizing that circumstances (technology and information) can change quite rapidly?

The legislative and executive branches of government have delegated authority to these agencies for a reason. The legislative and executive branches of government determine that scope of authority. That authority can be expanded and/or limited.



I don't believe there is any provision for those 'agencies' in the Constitution and I would personally rather they didn't exist at all. 90% of the alphabet agencies should be eliminated and the ones that are there should be there only to recommend policy that is made into law through an act of Congress.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Medical regulations, environmental regulations, transportation regulations, communications regulations. Does Congress have the ability to legislate such matters? Is Congress nimble enough to do so, realizing that circumstances (technology and information) can change quite rapidly?


That is the job of congress.

The job of those agencies is only enforcement of LAWS.

They don't have the RIGHT to make it up as they go along.

Especially without any oversight or judicial review.

Checks and balances.

The STATES power was limited at every turn.

The PEOPLES power was virtually unlimited.
edit on 26-5-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

90% of the alphabet agencies should be eliminated and the ones that are there should be there only to recommend policy that is made into law through an act of Congress.
You think, for example, that the FAA should make "recommendations" and each of those recommendations should go through the full legislative process?

www.faa.gov...


Or is the FAA unnecessary?

edit on 5/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Most LAWS assume that the Executive is going to make policy and procedural decisions in the implementation and ... well ... execution of the laws Congress makes ...

... in fact, more often than not, the Legislative grants that power to the Executive in those very LAWS.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Boy, you sure do take the fun out of conspiracy.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I'm curious. Do you think there is no place for such regulation at all? Or do you think that the legislative branch should be passing laws instead of there being agencies which create the regulations.

Congress doesn’t have the legal authority to do most of what it does.

Not based on our current law anyway. What law? The Constitution.

Otherwise they could just pass a law which exempts themselves from criminal prosectution. Well they have done that (Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself), but every law, if challenged, is judged as to whether or not it is Constitutional.

Unfortunately, this hasnt been very effective.

When it comes to reigning in the power and scope of government, the SCOTUS has a terrible track record.

The SCOTS is a political organization, a fact made absolutely clear by decisions like Dredd Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, Kelo v. City of New London, Obamacare etc.

So a decision by the SCOTUS is hardly legitimate.

There was a time when politicians respected the rule of law. For example, when outlawing alcohol, they acknowledged that they had no authority to do so (as they dont now with the “war on drugs”), without amending the Constitution, ie the 18th Amendment, and repealed it accordingly.

But all of that aside, regardless of the fact that the federal government has a very small, limited number of functions, that the states are responsible for the vast majority of governance, the point is, do we have the right to challenge rules/laws enacted by unelected bureaucrats?

The SCOTUS just said that we essentially don’t.

Well technically we do, but it would take a well funded organization to challenge a government with unlimited tax payer funds which would appeal any adverse ruling.



originally posted by: Phage
Medical regulations, environmental regulations, transportation regulations, communications regulations. Does Congress have the ability to legislate such matters?

Correct, there are a mind numbing, staggering amount of federal laws, rules and regulations. So many, that the government is not capable of telling us the exact number.

You're a criminal, whether you know it or not.


A task force told Congress that when they approached the Congressional Research Service and requested a list of criminal offenses in the federal code, "CRS's initial response to our request was that they lack the manpower and resources to accomplish this task," Sensenbrenner said Friday.

Thats right. The government simply said, we cant give you a list of all the laws, theres too many...



originally posted by: Phage
The legislative and executive branches of government have delegated authority to these agencies for a reason. The legislative and executive branches of government determine that scope of authority. That authority can be expanded and/or limited.

Correct, the legislative branch of government has delegated their authority and responsibilities to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who have the power to make rules which have the effect of law.

Their co-conspirators in the SCOTUS just said that we essentially have no right to legally challenge these unelected bureaucrats.



originally posted by: Phage

You think, for example, that the FAA should make "recommendations" and each of those recommendations should go through the full legislative process?

www.faa.gov...

Or is the FAA unnecessary?

Government air traffic control is unnecessary and probably exists without the legal authority.

Oddly, countries like Canada and the UK, which are arguably much more socialist than us have privatized air traffic control.

Air traffic control shouldn’t be a government responsibility.


Both the Clinton and Bush administrations made attempts at privatization, but they were held up by political concerns, including union opposition and that slow-moving bureaucracy.

Thank you.



edit on 27-5-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

i have always said that it's not just the elected politicians that need to be watched it's the bureaucrats that need to be watched, they are the one who do the real damage. the way they write,read, and interpret laws is far different than the rest of the people or government.

each and every bureaucrats job should be evaluated quarterly, from the office flunky up to the head of the agency by independent citizens. chosen just like jury duty.


edit on 27-5-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere




Oddly, countries like Canada and the UK, which are arguably much more socialist than us have privatized air traffic control.

Oddly, the topic is not ATC, but regulation. ATC does not make the regulations, nor does it enforce them.

Do you think that Congress should create a law for each regulation? There are hundreds (thousands?) of aviation regulations. They all should be laws? And the regulations of the other agencies? That would keep 'em busy. Or maybe all those regs are superfluous.

What about state agencies? Building codes and stuff? The job of the legislature?


edit on 5/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Government has the right to uphold freedoms and equality, constitution but not make laws and there are no slaves.

I denounce and renounce their abuse of authority and again, make those councils of citizens in every town that is connected on a dime and willing fire and throw out any rogue abuser. They need to oversee every government and judicial report/opinion/decisions, ie politics and court rooms (by the way I denounce our corrupt legal system as well) as the final power and have the power to fire anyone and demand civil arrest, not complicated procedures that the corrupt politicians do, they also should be ensuring only real people can run and all special interest from bloodlines to masonry gone.

You guys don't understand, this criminal cartal isn't doing anything legally. And writing or deciding on their made up BS isn't legal. Your heart and mind determine that except of the basis of thou shalt not harm others list of common laws.

The state of the current world with everyone allowing things that sell out their children, and invasions taking place, when all these items are "color of law" corporate law and actually violate constitution, freedoms and are illegal to enforce, just me want to upchuck!

Speak up, Grow up, Don't give your power away no matter what, and start to make lists of the criminals running things.

One day, when these tests are over, we're going to be hauling them away before tribunals.

Because they inherited their next step by what they ran for others here.
edit on 27-5-2016 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Can you imagine this Congress, this completely dysfunctional Congress, lawfully elected by the voters of the United States, taking over all regulations? Talk about a complete failure of government. They can't even pass a simple spending bill, which should be fairly boilerplate at this point, based on the years of CT's being passed to serve as budgets.

One important regulation against water pollution would take twenty years of fighting to ever make it into law, if ever.

Nah, I'll take agency born regulations, regulatory commissions, and roll with that thanks!



new topics




 
14

log in

join