Finally Some Great News-Supreme Court Does The Right Thing Striking Down Chevron Doctrine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Steve Forbes celebrates the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron Doctrine, and explains why this move restores liberty amidst the constant creep of government overregulation and loss of individual liberty.
Subscribe to FORBES: www.youtube.co...
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes...
Stay Connected
Forbes newsletters: newsletters.ed...
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Forbes covers the intersection of entrepreneurship, wealth, technology, business and lifestyle with a focus on people and success.
The debate over the Chevron Doctrine is a smokescreen for the debate over regulation. Yes, regulation makes us less free. But that does not mean it's bad. Is it better to have more freedom to pollute, or clean air and water? Is it better to have more freedom to engage in deceptive advertising or to have a more honest marketplace?
CAN WE FISH WITHOUT LICENSE??
Write laws that give scopes to those agencies that aren't vague then.
Congress needs to do their job.
This country is an embarrassment
This guy is an embarrassment
You're all screwed no matter which senile grandpa you elect. 😂
so leave?
You are easily manipulated, bud.
Oh boo hoo...do you want some cheese with that whine...
They did this the same week they legalized bribery
Constitution much? I lived it when they passed it, guess what the people were pissed.
Yeah… yes they didnt
Interesting ain't it? We are going backwards as a Nation. Make America Great Again = line the pockets of Billionaires while the people "eat cake".
@@Koitus36 what?
Translation: “Me and my billionaire friends have significant investments that will be protected by this Supreme Court decision.”
Bull. SCOTUS correctly put the legislative responsibility for writing law back where the Constitution places it: in the hands of representatives elected by the people.
No… it means our elected officials and the courts determine the law… not a tyrannical president and three letter agencies.
Actually it’s the opposite.
@@JCcheerio Yeeah like how clean the water should be! The field of study that requires years of schooling and experience all decided by a judge from the same sht school you came from, what could go wrong?
Yeah asthma, yeah unclean water, yeah dirty food.
Yeah, All them laws suddenly gone, Oh wait, never mind.
Young Earth Creationists believe Earth was created 6000 years ago.
Leftists believe Earth was created in the 1980s.
Then band together and make laws that regulate that through congress, individual bills should pass within a couple of weeks. Not 13,000 page bills. Let's keep it simple, I'm conservative and I want better environment protection.
Your ignorance is impressive. The epa doesn’t do anything for them
@@Recipe_For_Disaster_TVamen!
If Steve Forbes loves this ruling, then I’m sure it’s good for everyday people.
When did Forbes become a dumpsterfire? There’s ways to present news without sounding like propaganda. Of course there are many cases where field experts in the government are much more well versed to create laws than general judges. This is so one-sided it’s repulsing
@@TC-zf1jiDo you think present day Congress has the capability to write such detailed laws? Like how tf are they going to draft a law with safety regulations into a single bill and not miss anything? What happens if there needs to be an amendment that needs to be made? Our institutions are made inflexible.
Checks and balances slowly going out the window.
@@sweetsubversionThat’s bass ackwards.
This ruling allows us to close loopholes that have subverted checks and balances since the 80s. This is about reigning in the unchecked and unconstitutional powers that have been erroneously allowed to groups of unelected bureaucrats. It gives that power back to Congress, and by extension to the People.
@@wjspadewe “the people” will still have no say in these laws. All this allows is any judge to attempt to overrule any decisions made by an agency. Makes it so much easier for bit businesses to bribe old laws that protect the people out
Does that mean that the Social Security Administration will be forced to cease making their own weird rules?
Sorry I find it hard to believe a rich corporate old white man tell me that the agencies that have the best interest of Americans and their families say that profits should reign.
You believe that the fishermen who were required to pay a tax invented by an agency are a bunch or old white corporatists?
@@TC-zf1ji are you kidding me....safe food, safe drugs, safe water, seat belts, car seats, safe toys, safe appliances, safe work environments...all of these were tested and certified by agencies and are now federally regulated. However that may change very soon and with the Supreme Court overturning Chevron whereas courts (profits) instead of experts will be in charge of our safety.
Congress writes laws, courts interpret them, the executive enacts them. If you don't like this setup you need to alter the constitution. The ruling is correct. Should congress not like the courts interpretation of the law then congress can re-write the laws to stipulate their intent more clearly.
@@TC-zf1ji I worked in an agency that was put there by law and defined by Regulations published in the Federal Register. That was it....the agency had to read and interpret, you won't understand if you have never been in charge of implementing off these two documents, there are A LOT of grey areas. That is where the experience and expertise comes in ... to define, disseminate, and implement. There was no going to a Court to ask if what we were doing was OK; if it was legal; followed the law and regulations, met the performance standards of the regulations and could be achieved with the allocation it was adopted because WE know what we are doing. We didn't stop and say Mother May I. So yes I do know what I am talking about, probably much more so then you do because you are just buying into "less regulations" and do not understand the impact that will have on day to day operations and ultimately to Americans themselves.
@@zyxwvutsrqponmlkh you obviously have no experience in working with an agency that takes the law and supplemental regulations and implement them because what you said is ignorant of the facts of the process. You probably have never read a law or the Federal Register and tasked with implementing the jargon into working policies and procedures to put procedures in place to benefit Americans. I have, it has nothing to do with the constitution in the minutiae of implementing regulations.
Yes. Back to the Constitiution. Only Congress shall make laws. No more 3 letter agencies making unconstitutional laws.
Also, no executive orders to these agencies telling them to make those orders the "law".
More Forbes B.S......
They are 100% correct, and you can’t articulate why they aren’t. 🫠🤷🏾♂️
Nah, these guys have been twisting laws in circles changing the meanings of words 108° from the common meaning to justify tyranny without recompense. Congress writes the laws, the courts interoperate them the executive excites them. Under Chevron congress writes the laws, the Executive interoperates them (and frequently intentionally misinterpreted them) and the courts let them do as they please. This is just setting the ship back to how it is supposed to be sailing. A bunch of folk are screeching that the sky is falling, no, only in instances where the executive bureaucrats grossly misinterpreted the law will anything change, and vastly change for the better. If congress dislikes how the courts interpreted the law they have the power to re-write them. And that's how it should be, the executive should not be re-writing laws willy nilly, and chaining definitions one week to the next.
@@TooManyChoices1 regulations on big businesses exit for a reason... so food is safe, the environment and wildlife progressively safer, planes and cars are made properly, so labor workers arent taken advantage of(failed there a bit) but now such things will go through the corrupt courts with no experts on the subject at hand also potentially bribed by these corporations because they have millions to spare i'd read the offical documents but i doubt you'll get past 10 pages
im all for cracking down on the corporations that run the world, I just don't scotus has the american people's best interest at heart
though to be fair there is a bit too much power given to agencies to interpret, administer, and enforce those new laws. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights, but not always which could lead to abuses of power and/or malpractice
@@arthurpryor773 And who told you nancys to comment on Forbes? You certainly aren't subscribed.
Just tell is the news not biased propaganda. We already know you are connected financially to the oligarchy Forbes. You're not going to tell news so plebs live a more informed life.
how is this great news?
It's great for billionaires. For the rest of us, it will mean more pollution, and more bad behavior by giant corporations.
Really?? How is this great news??? START STUDYING if you're not very educated 😅
Don’t be governed by fear
Are you kidding? How is this good, Do you not see how the authorities have been in control of the corrupted 3 letter agencies FBI, ATF just ask somebody who use to or still does wk for Ask any real reporter, news casters. What kind of comment is will have pollution? People really need to get educated! Electric cars need oil to run, educate, educate, don't just listen to others that are not! Fact check , be an American. This is the last chance to return to what are Founder Fathers intended, don't be one of the many blinded, WAKE UP PLEASE!
Because it limits agency power?! Okay so certain agencies right now like say the ATF has recently tried simply changing their minds about things and acting as if that's law. Which is insane, they're an enforcement agency and they can't make laws but they were acting like they were. Which is completely going around the system of checks and balances that says law enforcement agencies can't make the laws, but only enforce them to give an example.
Tldr: it would be like a cop pulling you over and charging you with a crime and you say "I didn't break the law" and he says "yeah but I just decided that you did." Now they can't do that. Now this is just one example
i hate these old men
If your lucky one day (and it's quick) you'll be that old man you hate, wonder if you hate your grandparents?
You will be old one day and you will get yours!
LOOKS LIKE LEAD'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!
Throw in sprinkles of arsenic
Did I misunderstand this comment or did the people replying to this get it wrong? 🤔
@@TC-zf1ji cause nothing stopped them. Can’t really be trialed or jail when the opposition doesn’t have the appropriate authority to do so
@@TC-zf1jihow effective were regulatory agencies prior to the chevron ruling?
Then contact your representative and ask them to make a simple law re-establishing the federal rule or regulation you wanted. Democracy doesn't work if you don't even pressure your representative or communicate with them.
Can we fish without license
You’re taking authority away from experts in their fields and putting it into the hands of 9 Supreme Court justices who are paid by corporate billionaires to benefit them. Do you want Alito to make decisions on scientific research to determine what’s best for water quality or scientific experts? This is corporeal power and greed at its most extreme.
You really wants bureaucrats telling you what you can and can’t do. It’s government overreach, and remember some experts think a boy is a girl. All experts don’t have everyone’s best interest at heart
You don’t even understand how the constitution works. Of course you want Congress abdicating authority to unelected bureaucrats, just like a good statist! Chevron was bad law, as it expanded federal power, encouraged collusion to get around passing law, and weakened the rights of individuals, period.
@@godfahja1you’ll have to teach your kids who they are at home . This is way bigger than that . We might not even have drinkable water in 30 years . Imagine how they’ll dispose of chemicals and what they’ll put in our food and medicines . Please think bigger .
@@bleulotus I’m all for safety conservation. We still have safety measures in place. Thinking bigger for technological advancement to help is perfect. Bigger government to take freedoms away is not a savory solution and will leave a bitter taste in our mouths. You take care
Laws are to be written by the people we elect. "Experts" can advise legislators as laws are written, but they cannot make new laws, or impose new taxes, after laws are codified.
Striking down the Chevron doctrine only benefits corporate interests. The Chevron Doctrine allowed people who were experts in their fields to determine how ambiguity in the law pertaining to their field should be interpreted and applied. Now, we will have that up to judges who do not have that knowledge or expertise.
Wrong !! Now, Congress actually has to right law specific to the issue being addressed! They can’t just say “the irs is the tax agency, and can now set all taxes for everything”. The constitution is what it is, and this just puts things back how it should be. The fact you can’t see that is sad.
Experts in the field can testify so an informed decision is made. When it comes to Law, the Courts should handle it, not "experts in their field."
You believe it was an "ambiguity in the law" that created a new tax on these fishermen? BULL.
Yeah I had to deal with so called EXPERTS all my working life. You must work in a service type of Job if you think every body (especially if you work in government) is an Expert. Even if they worked in a field for over 30yrs, That does not always make them an expert. By the way the heads of those three letter Bureaucracies are almost "always a gift" from the president. Now do you think Buttgig is an expert as the secretary of transportation ? I think NOT.
We have lawmakers making decisions on things they know nothing about.
No kings. No billionaires. We the people. Vote. 💙
100,000 kids missing. Where’s your ❤ for them??
This ruling will hopefully curb things like the epa, atf and other federal agencies and state agencies making up rules as they see fit. Hopefully this will be the downfall of the state of California CARB. CARB known as the California air resource board is costing millions of dollars in unfair and un wanted rules and regulations. But we have to Sue them to change them since1984 that was impossible to do and have any hope of winning. Now we have hope.
This is terrible we need subject matter experts making these rules so now we expect a judge to know as much about airplanes as the FAA?
Experts can still give expert opinion evidence when an issue pertaining to their expertise is being litigated.
A judge not considering expert evidence is a ground for appeal. Your fears are unfounded.
You're kidding, right? So you trust a court to rule on a subject they don't understand instead of them asking an expert for clarification? And you don't realize how stupid that sounds?? SMH.
@jaywise1956 It wasn't a court that decided to impose a $700 / day tax on the fishermen in this case, "experts" did that. But the Constitution states that Congress may raise taxes, not "experts," and so these "experts" killed Chevron. Long overdue.
That means the courts can ban seed oils and fructose corn syrup, instead of waiting for the FDA to do it
And you know the FDA won’t….
@@TC-zf1ji and I hope Congress does that. That’s how it should work.
@@jaywise1956 Congress writes the law. Executive enforces the law. Courts interpret the law - NOT the Executive.
Im not sure this is good news.
Its like asking a cook to regulate space travel
A cook would say, “I’m not qualified, you should ask an expert. I’ll sous vide something for ya!”
State agencies are given their power by these federal agencies and should be shut down as well. ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!! END ADMINISTRATIVE LAW!!
@@InannaIshtar1115 so chaos is the plan forward?
@@tonydfixertonydfixer9113 constitutional law is hardly chaos...
@@InannaIshtar1115it can be when those who interpret the law essentially allow for chaos to take root
@mariachi3217 there should be no interpretation of the law. It should only be the constitution and exactly how it is written. Interpretation got us where we are now.
@InannaIshtar1115 BS, who said the things that are real contemporary today we're known 250 years ago ?
well i guess Forbes is absolute trash now too smh
Hopefully this old man will be around when his air and water are contaminated
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's been that way for a long time now
Now we have inmates running the show,
Results of not being able to define “woman”.
Good news? The kool aid is thick in this one.
@@luiscalderonjr.6395 naw bro… put yours down. It’s power back to the people. We get to decide
I prefer having edible food
And soon, you will! The fda is bought and paid for. Just wait until Congress bans seed oils
This does accelerate the end of the American Empire, but billionaires will make money as America slides downhill so it's all good!
Congress writes laws, courts interpret them, the executive enacts them. If you don't like this setup you need to alter the constitution. The ruling is correct. Should congress not like the courts interpretation of the law then congress can re-write the laws to stipulate their intent more clearly. You are brainwashed by weak talking points pushed by unelected bureaucrats.
Democrats meltdown!
I'm not a Democrat and I'll be honest, I'm concerned for the shift away from experts in general (even the few good ones) on interpretations of any ambiguities. It's making me rethink where people's priorities are.
@@BotanicalBasil The Executive Branch isn’t supposed to interpret the law, but to enforce it. Interpretation is the job of the courts.
SCOTUS provided us a necessary, long overdue and fantastic correction. Laws are codified by Congress, and compliance by citizens should not arbitrarily change when Presidential administrations change.
Yep! but hyperbole is a Proggs best friend.
Oh, yeah, Constitutional and personal liberty are diminished by regulation of bad business practices. Regulation makes us freer, healthier, and more prosperous. Forbes and Hump would go back to something like the smokey company towns where workers are virtual slaves.
Mr Forbes I am very concerned about the supposed to change to monitored Central Bank Digital Money. What do you think? I am elderly and don’t know what to do with my savings.
Maybe now, the American People redefine " Who's the Boss ?" In this country.
This ruling is a disaster for businesses. Instead of being bound to a single, well-publicized set of regulations, you and your competitors may now be subject to different regulations for every city, county, and state in which you do business. In addition, the judges now setting those regulations are not required to know anything about the product or process they're regulating, are not required to solicit any public input before issuing their regulations, and are not required to publicize their new regulations. You may have already violated a regulation that you didn't know about, and you won't know about it until you get sued. This ruling violates the Constitutional separation of powers, and it does so in a way guaranteed to sow contradictions and confusion in the most expensive way possible.
The dreadful decision was striking down Chevron.
Get ready everyone to grow your own food and filter your own water unless you want to flip a coin and guess if it may cause health issues.
@@TC-zf1ji the ones that can be bought by corporate lobbyist who only think about providing the cheapest materials/ingedients which cause health concerns. Then inflate the cost for more profit. Yeah. I knew that. You can tell by the ones that disregard scientific proof and turn it into a joke.
Why aren't you already doing that?
There is a drug that can potentially save the life of an individual but it comes with significant risk of mortality. do you want (A) a doctor who is well-versed in the chemical composition of the drug and the workings of the human body to process that drug to weigh the benefits and drawbacks or (B) a judge who is well-educated but has the most superficial understanding of the implications. This is a common case in medicine and this ruling affects all public agencies that support the health and well-being of society.
Can you argue that these public experts can be biased? YES. Can you argue that the judges can be biased? YES. The key difference here is KNOWLEDGE.
Imho, US's deference to scientific expertise is the reason the US has become the superpower it is today (atomic bomb, moon landing, planes, telephones, smartphones, ... list goes on). This deference to knowledge and expertise is what led to what many call the 'brain drain' (think of Albert Einstein moving to US to escape from Nazis; Chinese and Russian academics moving to US to escape Communism). This controversial decision has taken a major step in NOT making America 'great' again
major corruption in fda, nih, cdc,nrc etc etc
@@katadam2186 Perhaps and IF there is I hope they are rooted out as these places perform essential tasks for the functioning of a government. But having judges who have no expertise on the matter make decisions is worse. Expanding on my statement:
Is it possible that these public experts are corrupt? YES. Is it possible that the judges are corrupt? YES. The key difference here is KNOWLEDGE
The ruling didn't eliminate the federal agencies. The FDA can provide subject matter expertise to Congress.
@@timothykeith1367 I never said the federal agencies were eliminated. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Also, I think you mean Judges not Congress as this is a judicial ruling.
Finally, the point is the FDA can provide subject matter expertise but judges can now, for whatever reason (misguided morals, misinformation, corporate interest), make a ruling that is not supported by scientific evidence. These public experts need to provide objective references (evidence, sources, reasoning) for their recommendation (or risk being embarrassed and contradicted by peers) whereas the reference for judges is the constitution (unrelated to the subject matter) and sense of morality (which is subjective)
How is it UA-cam won't let me strike this channel??? Forbes is a joke 😂😂😂😂.
Glingchi send his check
Gonna have that smile wiped off his face when he sees the blood test next year.
So basically, the regulation bodies haven't been ran constitutionally , with regard to all of the policies they made, since 1984. Is that what they are saying or am i wrong? I mean i guess it was constitutional since they did it and declared it as legal for that time period? Im curious how this works, but im guessing the citizens affected by these policies for the worst wont be compensated or pardoned.
Yes you are getting it
FORBES WE KNOW WHERE YOUR INTEREST LIES!
Biden going to outlaw the Internal Combustion Engine ?!?!? Your brain is as gone as Biden’s 😂
I mean… he did say it
@@JCcheerio when?
Or really? 12 states so far have outlawed the sale of ICE engines in their state by 2035, and Biden supports this nonsense.
They wanted to push to electric vehicles, take gas stoves away all kinds of crazy stuff- Inflation reduced Act read it
@katadam2186 Yeah, now they want to poison your water. Deregulation of transportation (crashes and spills) let corporations do anything......
I thought this was @theonion
Are you eating it...or is it eating you?- The stuff (1985)
It'll be open season on our air quality, food and drug regulations, education and disease control.
We really in for it now. They playing in our faces and most are too unaware to realize the implications.
If important issues need to be addressed, then let "experts" assist Congress to write what is necessary into laws that we can all read.
I, for one, love the high quality ingredients in the current food supply that they are allowing to be used.
@PiggieSmall Would you love the Food and Drug Administration if they sent you a $700 bill every time you went the the grocery store? Because the National Marine Fisheries Service was doing that to fishing boats every time they went out. That fee was not authorized by Congress, and Congress is accountable to citizens.
@@carnakthemagnificent336 so the only answer to that is give a boatload of power to a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats that greenlight food additives and pharmaceuticals that are making us more and more sick?
This is monumental
Hooray at last !! 😊
Thank you god
Prior to this ruling, federal agencies not only got to interpret the laws, but write new legal code, AND serve as the judge in cases against citizens. Defendants would have to pay fines which undermined their ability to make further appeals.
NOW, citizens can request jury trials OUTSIDE the administrative agency, and the court will not have to defer to the agency's interpretation of the law as presumptively the only correct interpretation.
Big win for citizens' rights.
Nobody writes laws, but the US Congress !
agreed
The Chevron deference gave more power to the president to govern through agencies created by Congress, diluting the separation of powers. This ruling puts the responsibility for making law back where it belongs, in Congress.
😍🥰🌟🌟🥰🥰😍😍🥰🥰🌟🌟🌟🌟🥰🥰🥰🥰😍😍
I AM AND WILL ALWAYS BE PRAYING FOR AMERICANS SAFETY AND FOR AMERICA AND FOR GOD TO DO HIS WILL..JESUS CHRIST SAID FOR US NOT TO FEAR FOR THESE THINGS MUST COME TO PASS FOR HIM TO RETURN..JESUS IS THE ARK OF SALVATION.
LOL this just benefits home owners. They even work so they are shielded from all the rights stripping that P25 has to offer
Never forget that the two-party political system (or any for that matter) is just two sides of the same coin. Wings of the same bird.
Why the fug, in the current year of our lord, are you still using interlaced video?
Drownding in liberal tears over here..
Finally, corrupt entities are stripped of their immunity.
yes a random judge knows more about the environment than someone with a doctorate in the field
In some cases...yes.
@rpscorp9457 i will acknowledge that some people with doctorates have no idea what they are talking about and they suck all of my faith in academia out of me. However, I would say that >95 percent of the time, judges will be less informed on the topic in question.
@gregdearmond3309 but you see you're forgetting those "experts" are humans full of greed willing to adjust their data to the highest bidder
Here’s a genius idea, how about electing that person who has a doctorate instead of allowing them power through bureaucracy
@@bubbalawrence1 Will never happen. Youve got people with degrees in subjects that have *nothing* to do with the job descriptions....even at high levels of the government. The elections would devolve again into who has the most money to spend/most political pull to flip the electors.
Woaw. Didn’t think there’s such a breadth of understanding of this issue. He’s lying through his teeth. This is really bad for democracy.
How is enabling elected officials to pass laws while taking away that power from unelected bureaucrats a bad thing for "democracy"?
send in the trolls
🫡💎📈
All I hear is: blah, blah, blah. Is this really good news? 🙄
Yes
It's obvious that you're excited now that you can dump chemicals in rivers.
That’s not what it means
@@pf100andahalf you can’t do that
@@JCcheerio No longer will politicians control corporations. Corporations will now control themselves and looking back through history we can see that all they care about is profits. All of this environmental stuff costs them money so they're going to do away with every regulation they can now.
BS propaganda person!! The existing laws will still be in place.
Please Keep Yourself Safe Mr. Forbes.
Well this is right. If people in these agencies want to create laws , they have to go to congress to do that. Agencies never did have the authority to create laws.But they sure have tried haven't they? Sound far-fetched? Don't.
You remember back at the beginning of 2020 when the OSHA created the rent and mortgage payment debacle? Just no. That was the job of Congress if it needed to be done.
And now courts that weren't elected by the people get to interpret these laws. 😂. Except the court judges are experts in these fields 😂
@@Odin4President And yet , if this issue would have been in your favor you would be celebrating it.
That's called hypocrisy.
About time
this decision was awful and the corruption of the scotus is terrifying- there are regulations for a reason, the main ones abuses of power and lawful negligence and purposeful malpractice- the food, gas, and all big industries should be accountable and the government is what holds them to it but now...Forbes i dont know you but it seems clear you're a wealthy person who will benefit from this bullshit
Congress writes laws, courts interpret them, the executive enacts them. If you don't like this setup you need to alter the constitution. The ruling is correct. Should congress not like the courts interpretation of the law then congress can re-write the laws to stipulate their intent more clearly. I don't understand how so many people are brainwashed into thinking this much needed correction back to constitutional adherence is a bad thing.
@@zyxwvutsrqponmlkh im all for cracking down on the corporations that run the world, I just don't think scotus and congress have the american people's best interest at heart and would rather line their pockets and also Agencies only have the authority to create or promulgate regulations by a specific delegation from Congress at any point if corruption or malpractice is found it goes to court but if congress is doing it then...
though to be fair there is a bit too much power given to agencies to interpret, administer, and enforce those new laws. Generally, administrative agencies are created alongside the business created with industry professionals outside of the company to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights, but not always which could lead to abuses of power and/or malpractice.
beside the fact that congress takes forever to get anything done and we've got businesses running amok or completely halted while they wait months if not years to be seen for such assessments an outside federal agency would usually make in terms of approved company laws that comply with regulations in that field
most executive agencies have a single director, administrator, or secretary appointed by the president of the United States, independent agencies (being outside presidential control) almost always have a commission, board, or similar collegial body to lead in delegating authority to the company
it may seem unconstitutional to you and that may have some credence but it is by far more efficient than having every major business go through congress and there's still the potential for congress to pass company lies we wont agree with no regulations
@@PhyynP Corruption is a blight on democracy and it affects all branches of the government. But the checks and balances set fourth in the constitution do a reasonable job of reigning in some of the worst over reaches even if corrections often take decades.
But this was not a corrupt ruling. It merely reinstates the functioning of the government as the constitution stipulates. It does not end the EPA or any such thing it simply puts back the checks and balances over the executive that should have been in place all along.
When there is a legitimate dispute over the interpretation of a law the courts have both the mechanisms and duty to examine the case and call upon experts and make rulings on how the law should be interpreted. If congress feels the courts interoperation is wrong they can alter the law to clarify their intent.
With Chevron the courts permitted the executive to exceed it's authority to re-invent the law with fanciful interpretations without oversite or meaningful methods of redress for those impacted.
@@PhyynPThe failure of congress to carry out its duties is not justification for the courts to give it's duties to the executive. Nor do the courts have the authority to do so if they wished. If you think the executive needs more power to unilaterally change laws you need to amend the constitution.
I for one think we should bar congress from campaigning while in office, perhaps prohibit sequential terms. Restrict the length of bills and remove riders and keep congress in session if there is legislating that needs to be done. They need to do their jobs instead of pandering for political points all day always with the eye on the next election cycle instead of the good of the nation.
Thank God , We The People have a 2nd chance! Hopefully we dont blow it.
THANK YOU SCOTUS!!
I agree with you all the way !!!
Agreed completely,,, the defenders of “Chevron” say “the decisions are made by not by Judges”!! Pardon me,, in every Court, the “Expert Witnesses” are explaining all the technical matters for the Court, therefore; No matter who is running the show,,, the Experts make final decisions!!
The courts overturn of the Chevron deference limits the power of federal agencies and gives We The People a more expansive ability to challenge them in court. This drastically limits the ability of project 2025 to be implemented.
This is a bot. I've seen this exact same post in several places.
@@fruitingfungi I am in fact a human being who knows how to copy and paste my own words.
The Chevron deference gave more power to the president to govern through agencies created by Congress, diluting the separation of powers. This ruling puts the responsibility for making law back where it belongs, in Congress.
@@Nobody-j9e yeah yeah yeah. And we're a republic not a democracy.
@@fruitingfungi Article IV Section 4 US Constitution
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
@@fruitingfungiJust thinking the same thing.
50 years ago was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI ... (Pullover arrests)
All three offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY.
After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) returning to civilian life (Honorable Discharge) was difficult...
After 50 years as a prohibited person can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection?
When DUI arrests have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally abrogated"!
- USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
@@TC-zf1ji i think you mean "thank you for your service"
@@PhyynP Someone's service has little to do with their after service criminal acts. Drunk driving is a crime even if by chance you didn't plow into an orphanage. I have little faith in someone's self control not to misuse a gun while drunk if they have a proven track record of misusing a vehicle while drunk. A third DUI is often a felony and I think that is just. That said 45 years with no recidivism is likely deserving of clemency.
@@zyxwvutsrqponmlkh true a crime is crime and drunk driving is one offense of true horror, an awful thing to do given the history of tragedies but that doesnt mean he's not a vet either both can be true and i for one would never want to die for the usa so i respect all those risking their lives- still no idea why he ranted that on this of all videos but if true idk why a driving offense affect their right to own a gun- oh wait drunks that make bad decisions shouldn't own guns but i didnt think we had any type of regulations for that or to regain the status of a functioning sober person
@@PhyynPbreathalyzer calibration is often wrong… junk design
you should still write ''all rights reserved'' on your drivers license
😊
Thanks for explaining this decision.
King Donald
I'm glad to see that everybody is on the same page! Italy herelet'sｓstay informed and fight!