So they are well within their rights to pass a law setting up the FCC to promulgate regulations based on the Telecommunications Act.
The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court basically said “if an agency is going to make a regulation it needs to be very specifically based on a law that says they can do that.” So they’re saying that Congress is going to have to pass some actual laws about net neutrality before the FCC can make regulations enforcing it. The fact that agencies have been making those regulations without laws backing them up is the problem here.
Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Congressional votes in favor of an AUMF, as outlined in the War Powers Act.
That happened, sure. I’m saying it shouldn’t have. The US went to war without a declaration of war, which is something that should be made by Congress. By passing generic “the President can bomb whatever he wants to” legislation Congress is shirking a responsibility that’s supposed to be theirs.
If you want to have a government where the President is in charge of deciding when to go to war, go ahead and have one. By setting up a constitution that says that’s how it’s supposed to work. Don’t have a constitution that says “here’s how war is supposed to be declared” and then just go do something else instead of that.
The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine.
The SCOTUS disagreed because that’s what their oligarch told them to decide. Not because of any actual legal framework or reasoning involved.
Ahh yes the people who openly take bribes from the wealthy elite ruled that the government can not regulate the wealthy elite. I’m so surprised. Are we listening to the Fox’s opinions on gate to the chicken roost too now?
It’s in plain text for all to see. This isn’t some highly technical debate that this court was the first to see the light on. Chevron was 4 decades old and has supporting decisions from the supreme courts reaching back to st least the 1940’s. But sure, these guys saw something different suddenly. And it had nothing to do with the massive amounts of money they’ve received from billionaires.
And no. Not using the specific words, “declaration of war” doesn’t mean anything. Congress had to pass the AUMF bills the same as a declaration of war. Declaring open war was always a possibility.
I’m not making any statements here about what’s “right” or “good”, I’m just saying what is. The US government is operating in ways not intended by the constitution. At least not clearly intended. If you want to interpret that as me taking a position then it would be that they should fix their constitution. Until they do that then their government will be unstable and unpredictable.
Congress shall have the power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If they deem the regulatory power of agencies like the FCC to be necessary to carry out something in the entire list of powers I ellipsed; then it is constitutional. And no amount of “fixing” would work as long as we have a captured court ignoring the Constitution, straight up lying about it and about history.
So you’re saying that it’s the courts that are behaving incorrectly according to their role in the constitution? If so, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making here.
I’m saying the courts are operating in bad faith and not even trying to hide it. You can’t write your way around someone willing to declare the sky is purple if it profits their friends.
Except you’re blaming past congresses who absolutely operated inside their constitutional bounds. That is not the same thing because that would make any effective regulatory scheme impossible and give the courts a pass on their blatant corruption.
The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court basically said “if an agency is going to make a regulation it needs to be very specifically based on a law that says they can do that.” So they’re saying that Congress is going to have to pass some actual laws about net neutrality before the FCC can make regulations enforcing it. The fact that agencies have been making those regulations without laws backing them up is the problem here.
That happened, sure. I’m saying it shouldn’t have. The US went to war without a declaration of war, which is something that should be made by Congress. By passing generic “the President can bomb whatever he wants to” legislation Congress is shirking a responsibility that’s supposed to be theirs.
If you want to have a government where the President is in charge of deciding when to go to war, go ahead and have one. By setting up a constitution that says that’s how it’s supposed to work. Don’t have a constitution that says “here’s how war is supposed to be declared” and then just go do something else instead of that.
The SCOTUS disagreed because that’s what their oligarch told them to decide. Not because of any actual legal framework or reasoning involved.
Ahh yes the people who openly take bribes from the wealthy elite ruled that the government can not regulate the wealthy elite. I’m so surprised. Are we listening to the Fox’s opinions on gate to the chicken roost too now?
It’s in plain text for all to see. This isn’t some highly technical debate that this court was the first to see the light on. Chevron was 4 decades old and has supporting decisions from the supreme courts reaching back to st least the 1940’s. But sure, these guys saw something different suddenly. And it had nothing to do with the massive amounts of money they’ve received from billionaires.
And no. Not using the specific words, “declaration of war” doesn’t mean anything. Congress had to pass the AUMF bills the same as a declaration of war. Declaring open war was always a possibility.
I’m not making any statements here about what’s “right” or “good”, I’m just saying what is. The US government is operating in ways not intended by the constitution. At least not clearly intended. If you want to interpret that as me taking a position then it would be that they should fix their constitution. Until they do that then their government will be unstable and unpredictable.
Here’s the section again.
If they deem the regulatory power of agencies like the FCC to be necessary to carry out something in the entire list of powers I ellipsed; then it is constitutional. And no amount of “fixing” would work as long as we have a captured court ignoring the Constitution, straight up lying about it and about history.
So you’re saying that it’s the courts that are behaving incorrectly according to their role in the constitution? If so, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making here.
I’m saying the courts are operating in bad faith and not even trying to hide it. You can’t write your way around someone willing to declare the sky is purple if it profits their friends.
We’re saying the same thing. The government is not operating according to how the constitution says it’s supposed to be working.
Except you’re blaming past congresses who absolutely operated inside their constitutional bounds. That is not the same thing because that would make any effective regulatory scheme impossible and give the courts a pass on their blatant corruption.
I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m describing what’s happening. The reason why it’s happening is irrelevant.