Posts
"Against this backdrop, our coequal branches will be surprised to learn that the rule they thought long settled, and which remained unchallenged for half a century, is one that, according to the majority and the concurrence, my dissent just announced today. Unfortunately, that mistaken view means that the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress."
-S. Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America
Allow me to concur.
And dissent.
The Constitutionality of hundreds of statutes SHOULD be in peril. It's been obvious to a lot of us for a long time, and we're not even lawyers.
I've talked before about how it shouldn't be possible for regulations to have the power of law because the executive branch is granted no legislative power. Without that power, they cannot create what are laws in all but name.
Congress has no authority to grant these powers to the executive branch.
So any law that says to let the agency sort it out is unconstitutional.
I think we're going to see a lot of that sentence in the coming years.
One of the greatest 'tools' of the various agencies is the ability to make a civil violation into a federal felony. Done without any actual laws made setting rules for this.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the ways we've reached 'three felonies a day.'
Sotomayor is using dishonest wording. The statutes are still constitutional because they were writtenby Congress it is is the towering edifice of arbitrary rules that just had its foundation removed. But saying administrative rules by bureaucracy are unconstitutional doesn't have the emotional affect she wants.
ReplyDelete