If they kept to enumerated Powers they wouldn’t need to know nearly as much as you imply.
1 Like
The problem is our Executive branch of government is usurping and exercising powers not granted by our written Constitution.
JWK
“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
3 Likes
they do, and that is why we have three branches of government, so they can tussle with each other about what power they have.
1 Like
I prefer a government that doesn’t know so much. Particularly since much of what they know just seems to be wrong.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I don’t think the court will overturn chevron. I think they will chip away at it by constructing some rules for how courts have to look at it. (think scrutiny)
1 Like
Yep that’s my guess too.
still, it will be better if the courts “scrutiny” leans more toward questioning the authority than assuming it.
1 Like
When those in power have their heads firmly up their own backsides we should not be surprised to learn that they want more and more power to fuss over the minutiae of life.
2 Likes
That’s already begun with the “Major Questions Doctrine”; the new battles over what is or is not a major question will immediately commence.
Hooray.
Edit: also, there is nothing to overturn per se, it is one doctrine replacing another.
My opinion of politicians.
1 Like
Sounds like a politician.
Them too.
Correct. And every State follows the same procedure. The Legislatures pass the laws and direct (as spelled out in those laws) the Agencies whose auspices are pertinent to the law, to establish procedures and regulations to administer and enforce the law. The Legislators have neither the expertise nor the resources to do anything other than to tell the Agencies what their intentions are with regard to each law they pass. And if one actually thinks about it, would you really want the type of individual who populate our Legislative offices to write regulations? They can’t even write decent laws most of the time … and we certainly don’t want regulations to change every two years on the whims of newly elected idiots. That would be absolute chaos.
I do recognize that several Federal Agencies grossly abuse their power … the EPA comes immediately to mind … but the basis of their regulations still originates within the law. It is generalities, non-specificity and errors in the laws themselves that allows them a free hand to “over-regulate.” In other words, it is the neglect and/or incompetence of Congress that makes it possible for the Agency to abuse the power that Congress assigned to them.
1 Like
Yes. And the vast majority of regulation falls clearly within the Statutory direction given by Congress. It is only when overreach, such as we have seen in EPA’s air, water and wetland regulations, (which, by the way, have much support by some members of Congress) that legal cases develop to challenge those Agency moves. Most regulations that we live with every day not only do exactly what Congress intended at the time the Legislation was passed, but they are also supported by the vast majority of the people because they work.
Put me down as not trusting most of them, wanting to fire 80% of all bureaucrats, and doing away with 70% of all gobment agencies altogether.
2 Likes
That won’t help. The Law and the regulations are still there. All that would accomplish is to add months, perhaps years, to any process that requires compliance with a regulation.
1 Like
VERY few regulations means few bureaucrats and short process. Also few regulations, as there is WAY too many, would require often no compliance.
I prefer a society that require little compliance and more freedom.
I have a couple of member of my extended family who are truck drivers, over the road.
There are some seemingly complicated rules, (actually easy once you become familiar with them).
They can be on duty for up to 14 hours, 11 hours of which can be spent actually driving. A 30 minute uninterrupted break is required after the 8th hour. Once they hit 14 hours, or if they knock off early, they must take a 10 hour uninterrupted rest period, typically spent in their sleeper.
After accumulating 60 duty hours in 7 days or 70 duty hours in 8 days, they must take a 34 hour uninterrupted break/rest period, during which they can neither drive nor perform any work duty of any kind.
They must keep an accurate log, which I now believe is required to be kept electronically, of their activity and rest.
They must take physicals every year to ensure they are fit to drive.
Truck drivers must comply.
The next time you are on the interstate in your little car or suv, you should be glad they are in compliance. It means that truck driver behind you is well rested and fit drive that tremendous sized vehicle.
I don’t agree with everything the government does, but some of it is very important and serves to keep you and me from being run down by a sleepy, overworked truck driver or some other person who is not fit to do their job or overworked.
Yes, there is crap to prune.
And then there is the very important stuff that must remain.
2 Likes
Thank you for the fine example of just how stupid regulations can be. There is virtually no way any of the math for that adds up. The only possibility to have 70 duty hours in 8 days is to have exactly 59 hours at the end of 7 days and drive 11 hours on the 8th day, and the only way to have 59 hours after 7 days is to have some combination of less than 11 hours driving on at least 6 of them. If you followed the 11 hour guidance at the end of day 5 you would have a minimum of 59 duty hours meaning you could only drive 1 hour on day 6, and must take a 34 hour break putting you 5 hours into day 8 which if you then drove 11 hours would have to take another 34 hour break.
