Posted on 03/27/2019 10:53:14 PM PDT by zeestephen
The Supreme Court heard a direct challenge to a major component of federal agency law Wednesday called "Auer Deference." Auer deference says judges ought to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations....Business groups and conservative critics of the administrative state have waged a steady campaign against Auer in recent years....An agency will intentionally issue a vague regulation, construe that regulation to its own benefit, then use Auer to command judicial fealty to its decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
DC has become a bureaucratic beast system, completely ignoring USConstitution. In many ways nullifying Congress, so they don’t even have to do what they are required to do. Congress somehow empowered agencies to exercise their legislative authority.
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? — James Madison, Federalist Papers 62
All of a sudden the leftie justices are worried about judicial power grabs. Mmm-kay.
In contract law, vague terms are usually construed against the one who wrote it. Of course, government reverses that for itself, and makes the law anything that they say it means on any given day. Grrr.
That is so perverse. That is so convoluted. Laws, by-laws, and established organizational procedures should be plain and simple. This sounds like 10 ifs, 100 ands and 10,000 buts (as in butts polishing chairs).
I was in court recently and the judge asked our attorney for his interpretation of the law. Our attorney replied to the judge, “Your honor, I actually wrote the statute that became law.”
That’s when we knew we had the correct attorney.
The result of a lazy Congress not doing it’s Constitutionally mandated job by delegating its authority to the executive branch of government.
In contract law, vague terms are usually construed against the one who wrote it. Of course, government reverses that for itself, and makes the law anything that they say it means on any given day.
...
The government can’t be trusted to police itself.
Aur and Chevron deference and the Administrative state itself cannot be reconciled with Constitutional government.
No one is under any moral compulsion to obey ANY regulation not passed by Congress.
Re: “That’s when we knew we had the correct attorney.”
That’s a great story!
Administrative law is the 800 pound gorilla. No accountability, very little due process, rigid, inflexible, very scary.
I thought Dianna Ross was dead.
To some extent, I think most people, and even many well informed people, do not completely understand what the Executive Branch of government does.
At the most basic level, the job of the Executive is to enforce the laws made by Congress.
Since no Congressional statute can anticipate every possible event, the Constitution grants the Executive Branch broad discretion as to how statutes must be enforced.
In theory, the “rules and regulations” created by Executive agencies and Cabinet departments are not “laws.”
Instead, they are general or specific enforcement policies that are logically derived from specific Congressional statutes.
Agency rules and regulations are written by the President, as Executive Orders, or by agency and Cabinet executives, who exercise authority delegated by the Constitution or the President.
Bottom Line - for the last 60 years, Republican Presidents and the Congressional Republican leadership have been inexcusably passive about the cancerous growth of agency and Cabinet power.
At least Trump talks about the Deep State - but, as far as I’m concerned, no one in the Republican Party has done anything serious or consequential to stop it.
“For its part, the Court’s liberal bloc passionately defended Auer, saying agency experts are far better equipped to interpret regulations “
This idea is at the heart, and part of the soul of “progressive” thinking, which really does not care for democratically elected government much at all. The administrative state is largely their construction, and built for their true agenda - rule by the experts.
“Justice Stephen Breyer said a change to the current arrangement would amount to a power grab.....”“This sounds like the greatest judicial power grab since Marbury versus Madison,” Breyer said,....”
Breyer ignores, as I would expect him to, that the administrative state is biggest “power grab” in the whole history of the United States. It exists as an abdication of Congressional power as the only power authorized by the Constitution to make federal law, and concedes that power to the executive.
And worse, Congresses have allowed that power to stand, against the citizens, as police, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one, and often with little recourse for the citizen in any immediate sense. Instead of having to go to court to prove its case against you, in a court of law where evidence must be presented, the defendant has all the rights of a defendant and judgement is pronounced by the court, the administrative state can issue sentences, take fines, take property and deny services without having proved its case against you in any court.
Breyer ignores totally what a massive “power grab” that is.
“Kagan was equally emphatic, saying that the Supreme Court has referenced Auer and its predecessor in at least a dozen cases going back to the 1940s. What’s more, she continued, Congress has never expressed opposition to Auer despite its frequent use in the federal courts. It would be unusual to overrule precedent in such circumstances, she claimed.”
Defense of “precedent” is NOT a defense of the Constitution, but merely a defense of a supremacy ABOVE the Constitution that the Supreme Court does not have. Every new session of the Supreme Court is a new court, just as every session of Congress is a new Congress. And just as every new Congress is not Constitutionally obligated in any sense to keep “precedent” with legislative acts that went before it, neither is any session of the Supreme Court Constitutionally obligated to use “precedent” as an excuse for not doing what THAT court thinks is right.
Anything that restricts a citizen’s liberty that was NOT duly voted on by our elected representatives should be struck down as unconstitutional.
For the record, it is worth noting that the Solicitor General, President Trump’s appointee, sided with the liberals.
I suspect this is going to be some dry reading for me later in the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.