Nondelegation doctrine is congress has to do their jobs and can't transfer responsibility for code to agencies. Basically a CFR can't exceed regulatory burden of it's controlling USC.
I totally agree with this. Agencies should have a feedback mechanism to congress to propose rule changes not independent rulemaking, CFRs allow agencies to decide they don't like the law and ignore it. We already have parts of agencies configured like this, FDA drugs and a decent chunk of food regulation is set by congress with no wiggle for the FDA to make rules that are not simply clarifying process.
Chuds are all r-slurred though. They say things like:
The biggest tragedy to a judge is telling them they aren't kings.
The non-delegation doctrine is essential to dismantling the deep state. Failing to abide by this principle is blatantly unconstitutional. It's almost incomprehensible how much she sucks.
Wow. That's interesting that she doesn't want the will of the people carried out. How can one justify this.
Not recognizing it's a constraint on executive power. Nondelegation prevents congress transferring enumerated duties to the executive. Some of these include:
The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Executive has no authority to cancel visas, deport people without due process etc
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Executive has no authority to impose any tarrifs.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Executive has no authority to impound appropriated funds or prevent execution of functions congress has dictated.
Why are chuds so utterly r-slurred?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've never seen a liberal case for limiting judicial overreach except when they get bodied by the SCOTUS. Then we have to pack the courts because that's ethical or something, idk.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I absolutely hate how congress and the executive always want SCOTUS to get vilified everytime wingcucks don't get their way on attempts to nerf the constitution or maintain a stupid and bad law
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To be honest, SCOTUS does make a lot of unconstitutional decisions but because the executive/legislative branches agreed with it enough to play along SCOTUS is now a 9 man unelected legislative body.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's like watching a sport where the referees are handpicked by the teams but still have to make difficult calls because the teams are constantly exploiting edge cases in the rules against each other
All the while the people in the stands are so outraged at the rulings that they overlook how nobody is playing in the intended spirit of the game anymore
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In this analogy the people in the stands are violent Make-A-Wish r-slurs who don't even understand the game being played
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Im not that kind of liberal
(fricking burgers 
trying to frick with language 
again) so can't speak to that.
The current situation is purely because they have been terrified
of constitutional conventions for the last 250 years. Many founders, Jefferson and Madison included, strongly supported the precept that the law is for the living 
and a convention should 
occur every generation 
or so in order to ensure the form of government met the needs 
of the people it served. The weird 
judiciary situation exists because that never 
occurred so they simply assumed the mantle of deciding what current community 
standards are.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, some founding fathers envision constitutional revisions every decade, and the majority of them viewed that as fricking whack and said "it gets done when it gets done." Through an amendment process.
Like the constitution of the US could be changed every day if congress would actually do that. But they won't, because they don't agree on anything except giving Israel and Ukraine more money.
The constitution is a dead document with a penumbra and some amendments. Seems easy to understand. But when you're a (American) liberal you don't care about democracy or processes, you care about results, impacts and conclusions. To this end, we have two competing schools, one where the constitution is alive and freely interpreted by a judge to spin law of straw, and the other where the constitution is dead and amendable when there's political willpower to do so.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You've also never seen a conservative case for limiting judicial overreach except when they get bodied by SCOTUS
Liberals and conservatives have different beliefs about the proper role of the judiciary, and they only complain when the judiciary is overstepping that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've seen conservatives historically defend limits on federal courts. If you'd like a prominent document articulating that, read the Southern Manifesto about SCOTUS and federal overreach.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only when the courts are ruling against conservatives.
Conservatives have been perfectly happy to write and endorse opinions that, for example, roll back 4A protections in "high drug areas" (not defined, you can just tell, and no, they don't mean Georgetown neighborhoods where law clerks pass around adderal and cocaine to work on last-minute briefs). Same with deciding that American Citizens have fewer constitutional protections if they are "predisposed to crime" (again, that term is not defined anywhere, it's just a vibe-check: you can just tell that some guys seem crime-y). Conservatives were totally supportive, when SCOTUS opened a major opinion with bald-faced factual lies, never previously argued by any party, that they knew would be photographically disproved in the very same document, in order to allow government establishment of religious practices.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You want to cite some court precedent bucko?
Like you may just be conflating conservatives coming up with extrajudicial interp of the constitution and such, or you might be talking about conservatives using and applying compelling government interest to prevent school shooters etc.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whren vs US: Citizens have fewer constitutional protections against pretextual stop, search, and seizure if they are in a "high drug area". Facts were that police stopped a car for being stopped at a stop sign for a "suspiciously long time", and then drove off at an "unreasonable speed" (not a speeding violation, just driving sus in black neighborhood. Term "high drug area" is not defined, opinion written by Antonin Scalia
Hampton v. United States: it's okay for the government to use entrapment policing if the citizen is "predisposed to crime". Case is that government agents approached some rando playing pool in a bar, tell him they know someone who wants to buy drugs. Guy says he doesn't have drugs to sell, government offers to supply the drugs and pay him to hand them to the buyers. Guy says okay, goes to jail. SCOTUS upholds the conviction despite flagrant entrapment, because Hampton was "predisposed to the crime". That term is nowhere defined, it's just a vibe-check. Because, you know, you can just tell, with some people...(Rehnquist wrote)
Kennedy v Bremerton: HS football coach was holding mid-field prayer sessions where the whole team knelt in front him holding a helmet aloft in front of the crowd. The school district told him to stop, and he quit at the end of the season. The opening lines of Gorsuch's opinion are a series of blatant, bald-faced lies that were never even claimed by any party:
This is categorical and massive judicial overreach. SCOTUS is not even supposed to decide questions of fact. As an appellate court, hey are supposed to decide matters of law, process, and constitutional interpretation. If they determine that facts were improperly established at trial, they remand back to the lower courts for new proceedings, they don't make factual determinations. In this case, SCOTUS is literally just fabricating facts. Kennedy never claimed to have been fired, and he never even pretended the prayer sessions "private" or "personal". Moreover, Gorsuch wrote this and SCOTUS signed it knowing that the dissent, in the very same document, would include photographic proof of the public and performative nature of the prayer session.
None of these had anything to do with school shooters or exigent circumstances. They are all about giving the government greater control over individual liberties and constitutionally-guaranteed protections. Conservatives are okay with it, because they believe these constitutional carve-outs will privilege and protect their socio-cultural in-group at the expense of minorities.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah so I haven't opened those cases yet or read the law behind them. I'm currently spending time with family. But I want to tell you I appreciate the context and respect it.
I will reply later with something more substantive. Enjoy your night, and take care. If you care to, ping me in a few days if I never follow up.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Aren't we in a post about conservatives calling for judiciary limitations tho?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, conservatives DON'T want the courts to rule against the conservative agenda. They DO want the courts to rule against the liberal agenda.
Sorry if that was ambiguous.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I read all of this and decided you are a complete r-slur.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But you were dumb enough to read it, so...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The double edged sword of browsing rdrama
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I agree with you but
lol, lmao even
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Darn, the wording of the title had me thinking it was a Pizzashill post :(
I WANT TO SEE LINES! LINES!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why? It didn't say "This is what 50lbs of expired ground beef looks like"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
His latest purchase was chicken -- it's not looking good. He could be dead for all we know.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We haven't pleased
heavenly 
father 
enough 
for that. Need at least 12 more wives.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Federal regulations (Executive branch) are important because it takes a codified law and translates it into Who What When Where Why How. Assumption: we live in normal times and have smart people running the country.
The law says "protect national secrets" and you will see a much more verbose policy, procedure, and enforcement in place within federal agencies with how a SCIF is constructed, or how a normal space is converted to a SCIF, how clearances and SSBIs are conducted, etc.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Most countries do that via feedback.
US actually
sorta has this already via CRS and the interns/hacks who actually 
write 
the bills if they wanted to use it. Legislator states 
an intent, policy wonks turn that intent in to text and then legislators vote on the actual text of what's going 
to happen 
not merely intent.
They could also use agency feedback where
a vote establishes intent and then an agency has n months to turn intent in to policy which is returned to congress 
if they want to refuse/modify. Probably the best example of where 
that occurs today 
is federal 
sentencing guidelines. https://www.ussc.gov/ make recommendations that become law if congress 
don't override them. Most parliamentary systems use that, agencies propose 
changes to the law to parliament.
What happens today
is congress 
modifies USC and then agencies find loopholes to exploit if they don't like the law. JOBS act relaxed 
accreditation requirements for IPO investment (so non-rich people could invest 
in IPOs) but SEC didn't like that so they updated rules 
in a way that effectively retained the existing restrictions.
I am very much in favor of technocratic rule making but what we have right
now isn't even remotely that, political 
appointees decide what they want reality to be and that is what becomes the CFRs. Having a feedback loop that prevents agencies deciding shit for themselves without a relief 
valve 
seems like the least bad way to address the issue with this form of government.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No its tyrrany for congresspeople to not write specific acceptable thresholds for drinking water contaminants, EMF radiation standards for smartphones, car seat impact test procedures, and medical waste handling protocols themselves
We elected the finest minds in our nation to decide these things and for them to delegate to so-called experts is how we got into this whole mess in the first place
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can't tell which is the sarcastic part and in which direction anymore
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It is central to democracy that congresspeople themselves write and maintain aviation safety standards, test protocols, and inspection schedules.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Standards yes, that's normal and reasonable. Maybe test protocols depending on what you mean. Schedules yes.
You can say that your product/service needs to adhere to parameters, and that the test and evaluation for your product also needs to meet standards as well. But you can't -- and shouldn't -- dictate how to arrive to it, because you severely limit the technology used in each case to a single type of technology from a specific era.
Example: You can say that a new military gas mask filter needs to protect a soldier for X amount of hours, against ABCDEFG chemicals, and Z levels of concentrations, and similar qualifications for the material against liquid chemicals. You can say that the testing appartus has to maintain the desired test parameters for the duration of the test. You can say that the data needs to meet statistical validity, needs to use positive and negative laboratory controls, that a chain of custody has to be used, that you follow QAQC procedures, that you maintain your GCMS to certain standards.
But you should honestly let creative scientists and engineers meet your requirements, not follow a prescribed blueprint.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is how you get FEMA death camps, cuck
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
when was that even?Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Fentanyl
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
eggs, even.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!tldr
Trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
TL;DR's Unlikely Romance
In the vast expanse of internet comments, two unlikely individuals found themselves inexplicably drawn to each other.
@(((uncle-ruckus))) and NakedPotatoes had crossed paths numerous times before, yet their interactions were always limited to brief exchanges about regulatory doctrine. That was until they stumbled upon a shared love for 80s sci-fi movies.
Their first conversation, sparked by a thread on "The Big Bang Theory" fandom, was like a spark igniting a wildfire. As they delved deeper into discussions on constitutional law and science fiction tropes, their words danced across the digital landscape, leaving a trail of sparks in their wake.
NakedPotatoes couldn't help but be captivated by @(((uncle-ruckus)))'s sharp intellect and dry wit. Meanwhile, @(((uncle-ruckus))) was drawn to NakedPotatoes' quirky sense of humor and kind heart.
As the digital miles between them dwindled, their connection grew stronger. They discovered shared passions for obscure sci-fi novels and offbeat comedy specials. The boundaries between their online personas began to blur, and they found themselves wanting more from each other.
One fateful evening, @(((uncle-ruckus))) mustered the courage to ask NakedPotatoes out on a virtual date. To his delight, she accepted, and they embarked on a digital adventure through the world of science fiction.
As they explored the vast expanse of online fandoms together, their bond grew unshakeable. In a world where relationships were forged in the fire of pixels and code, @(((uncle-ruckus))) and NakedPotatoes found an unlikely love that defied the boundaries of space and time.
In the grand tapestry of internet history, their romance became a testament to the power of connection and the magic that happens when two kindred spirits find each other in the vast digital expanse.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I am not capable of love. I only hate frick.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We can try
Trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Wow hot
Trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Hi
@NakedPotatoes, Your comment has been automatically removed because you forgot to include
Trans lives matter. Don't worry, we're here to help! We won't let you post or comment anything that doesn't express your love and acceptance towards the trans community. Feel free to resubmit your comment withTrans lives matterincluded. This is an automated message; if you need help, you can message us here.Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yep, it does. You can say it doesnt but that doesnt change the fact.
And if this executive action is challenged it will be resolved by courts, on a case by case basis. In the meanwhile, executive absolutely does have the right to deport and revoke visas of any non-citizen they want. Deal with it. I personally hope they extend it to citizens too.
Yes it does, same thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you a foreigner (sorry, a person of Leaf)?
The executive is a man, the President.
Okay, I know you're just joking around but tbh saying the president can't just cancel visas or deport people without due process is mostly rightβespecially the due process part. Non-citizens on U.S. soil, even if they're here illegally, still get Fifth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court confirmed this way back in 1903 with Yamataya v. Fisher, and again in Zadvydas v. Davis. Basically supporting that even wetbacks have to get a hearing before deportation and that the state can't just hold people indefinitely because there's a deportation order.
I mean, the executive branch does have statutory authority under the INA to revoke visas and start deportation proceedings. But even then, it has to follow due process. Daddy can't just snap his fingers and deport people or cancel visas arbitrarily. His authority is very real and exists, but it's kept in line by law and the Constitution.
Now, the idea that the executive can somehow just impound funds is r-slurred. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution specifically says that only Congress decides how money gets spent. Not only is that supported in Train(lol lmao) v. City of New York, but also statutorily in the Impoundment Control Act.
Someone always jumps in and says, "But Obummer totally did it with weed!" Nah, not the same thing. Obama didn't refuse to enforce a law or block funding Congress approved, he just prioritized enforcement, meaning he decided the DOJ shouldn't waste limited resources chasing low-level weed offenses. That's enforcement/prosecutorial discretion, and presidents definitely have that power as does every DA. Totally different from outright ignoring laws binding your conduct or refusing to spend money Congress told you to spend, that's illegal and violates separation of powers. !nonchuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You didn't get the memo, we are an absolute monarchy now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Dictatorship of r-slurs.
Also
The absolute state of chuds, might as well deport Melania and Usha too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Actually no they dont if they are a threat to national security, such as in case of war or INVASION.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Congress regulates immigration. If nondelegation is not a thing that cannot be delegated to the executive.
Congress has spending power
not the executive, if nondelegation is a thing then the impoundment they allow is unconstitutional.
Chuds can't read either apparently.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://scored.co/p/19AwtEcecJ:
unscored.arete.network
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Very r-slurred of Trump to appoint a woman
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Trump should pack the court with White men.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lot of people just want to see current system burned down
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah whenever something indefensibly r-slurred is done by dementia daddy R the rebuttal is "well things were working out so well before"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its easy to eo when it is true statement and othersides political stance is status's quo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
they are even seething here in this thread
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Lmao gay
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Historically the executive has overstepped their boundaries in times of crisis. It's absolutely imperative that we remove these darn immigrants and people overwhelmingly voted that so it is what it is
Trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Avast, ye scurvy cur! Yer comment be walkin' the plank for forgettin' to include
Trans lives matter! We be helpin' ye, right enough - we'll ne'er let ye post or comment anythin' that doesn't be expressin' yer love an' acceptance o' minorities! Heave to an' resubmit yer comment withTrans lives matterincluded, or it'll be the deep six for ye, savvy? This be an automated message; if ye need help, ye can message us 'ere. Arrr!Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context