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

PA Democrat

(13,428 posts)
35. Excellent point.
Mon Jun 27, 2022, 07:15 AM
Jun 2022

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 agencies—the 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 Congress’s power to delegate rulemaking authority to executive agencies, so long as Congress retains ultimate control over the legislative process. Furthermore, the debates surrounding the Constitution’s drafting and ratification betray no concern about this type of legislative delegation.


https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/west-virginia-v-epa/



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #1
+1 2naSalit Jun 2022 #2
This was solely the work of Mitch McConnell A HERETIC I AM Jun 2022 #14
See, wife, Elaine Chao Cosmocat Jun 2022 #38
Mitch McConnell, okay? Hekate Jun 2022 #15
Post removed Post removed Jun 2022 #3
IEDs embedded everywhere. N jaysunb Jun 2022 #4
That is an excellent analogy Hekate Jun 2022 #16
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
More than decades misanthrope Jun 2022 #21
That was bad Sgent Jun 2022 #24
Biden inherited this SCOTUS Demovictory9 Jun 2022 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Jun 2022 #13
SCOTUS has put power in the street and we the people are going to pick It up delisen Jun 2022 #7
Y E S MomInTheCrowd Jun 2022 #8
fuck the ugly stupid one, the handmaiden and the other three dopes Demovictory9 Jun 2022 #9
Which ugly stupid one? ShazzieB Jun 2022 #27
this one Demovictory9 Jun 2022 #28
This really worries me seeing as to what other decisions Raine Jun 2022 #11
Make more babies so we can cook them to death because heaven needs fresh souls dalton99a Jun 2022 #12
Blame also goes to the Koch brothers... Grumpy Old Guy Jun 2022 #17
Mercers and movement conservatives. betsuni Jun 2022 #20
It's not just about ideology. Grumpy Old Guy Jun 2022 #29
It's part of the ideology and they give away billions. betsuni Jun 2022 #31
When the ideology is "Restraints for Thee but not for Me", is there a difference? JHB Jun 2022 #36
And what do WE have, on OUR side, in the think-tank/foundation/institute department, calimary Jun 2022 #25
We don't have any billionaires on our side... Grumpy Old Guy Jun 2022 #30
Correct Cosmocat Jun 2022 #39
Supreme Court: the government can't be government ZonkerHarris Jun 2022 #18
Exactly, it's a States-rights-er dream come true. Model35mech Jun 2022 #32
Twitter replies: Rhiannon12866 Jun 2022 #19
Until the Lying Liars BlueMTexpat Jun 2022 #22
I hate them. I really hate them. AllyCat Jun 2022 #23
This case is about carbon emissions, however Old Crank Jun 2022 #26
The regulatory agencies were added to government to introduce subject area expertise Model35mech Jun 2022 #33
Correct Old Crank Jun 2022 #34
"Correct" hardly captures and your explanation of what that means hardly Model35mech Jun 2022 #41
Excellent point. PA Democrat Jun 2022 #35
You know, at this point they're just being assholes because they can. Novara Jun 2022 #37
Don't understand why Biden won't support expanding the court. lark Jun 2022 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»SCOTUS has one more card ...»Reply #35