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.
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 right—especially 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