Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: SCOTUS has one more card up its sleeve this week. [View all]PA Democrat
(13,428 posts)35. Excellent point.
Good discussion of this strategy here:
In their briefing at the Supreme Court, the parties challenging the Clean Power Plan relied heavily on an interpretive presumption sometimes called the major questions rule. According to the challengers, laws passed by Congress must speak with unmissable clarity before authorizing an agency to address matters with major political or economic significance. Applying that rule, the challengers argued that the Clean Power Plan is legitimate only if the Clean Air Act specifically authorizes the precise methods of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that the rule prescribes. The challengers further claimed that the Supreme Court must apply this major questions rule as a way of enforcing a constitutional prohibition on laws that delegate legislative authority to agenciesthe so-called nondelegation doctrine.
CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the EPA on behalf of Julian Davis Mortenson, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a leading scholar on constitutional history relating to legislative delegations of authority. Our brief explains that under the original understanding of the Constitution, there is no prohibition on legislative delegations to enforce, either directly or through a major questions rule.
As the brief explains, at the time of the Founding, legislative authority was understood to be inherently delegable. The British Parliament and other legislatures across the Anglo-American world had a long tradition of delegating broad discretionary rulemaking authority to agents, who were not regarded as impermissibly making law when they exercised that authority. Consistent with theory and precedent, legislative delegations were a pervasive feature of state governance in America, both before and after Independence.
As we further explain, the ratification of the Constitution did not introduce new restrictions on delegation. Although the Constitution divides power among three branches and assigns all legislative powers to Congress, nothing about that division requires limits on Congresss power to delegate rulemaking authority to executive agencies, so long as Congress retains ultimate control over the legislative process. Furthermore, the debates surrounding the Constitutions drafting and ratification betray no concern about this type of legislative delegation.
CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the EPA on behalf of Julian Davis Mortenson, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a leading scholar on constitutional history relating to legislative delegations of authority. Our brief explains that under the original understanding of the Constitution, there is no prohibition on legislative delegations to enforce, either directly or through a major questions rule.
As the brief explains, at the time of the Founding, legislative authority was understood to be inherently delegable. The British Parliament and other legislatures across the Anglo-American world had a long tradition of delegating broad discretionary rulemaking authority to agents, who were not regarded as impermissibly making law when they exercised that authority. Consistent with theory and precedent, legislative delegations were a pervasive feature of state governance in America, both before and after Independence.
As we further explain, the ratification of the Constitution did not introduce new restrictions on delegation. Although the Constitution divides power among three branches and assigns all legislative powers to Congress, nothing about that division requires limits on Congresss power to delegate rulemaking authority to executive agencies, so long as Congress retains ultimate control over the legislative process. Furthermore, the debates surrounding the Constitutions drafting and ratification betray no concern about this type of legislative delegation.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/west-virginia-v-epa/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I was just thinking about how it appears they went ahead with TFG's second term without him.
Hugin
Jun 2022
#5
That is because of what happened in 2016 when the SC was at stake. That election planted the
JohnSJ
Jun 2022
#6
Make more babies so we can cook them to death because heaven needs fresh souls
dalton99a
Jun 2022
#12
And what do WE have, on OUR side, in the think-tank/foundation/institute department,
calimary
Jun 2022
#25
The regulatory agencies were added to government to introduce subject area expertise
Model35mech
Jun 2022
#33