-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Chevron deference is dead!!!
- Thread starter Rob Boudrie
- Start date
Lank
NES Member
Ok, so moving forward then? No more promulgated shit?
Tartakovsky
NES Member
Get after it
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 30,792
- Likes
- 41,639
Mistakes were made
I'm was hungover as f*** trying to build a playground area after a rain storm in ga
I've drank 200+ ounces of fluid today and sweated it all out
Tartakovsky
NES Member
Can’t win em all
namedpipes
NES Member
That reminds me of an old Hardy Boys book I read many years ago. The Vase of the Counterfeit Criminals. I wonder if that's online someplace?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 30,792
- Likes
- 41,639
I'm intrigued what this means for any ruling...is everything fair game right now
The Chevron Doctrine Runs Out of Gas
Supporters of the rule of law should welcome the Supreme Court's abandonment of the so-called "Chevron doctrine."
www.newsweek.com
Gidge
NES Member
pastera
NES Member
Yes - and that's the problem
Where do you start.
If we can start with a few very clear cases to reestablish good case law then things fall into place as the following cases can cite those cases.
Artie
NES Member
I am one of those that don't understand what this means. Is there a simple example of what was and what will be now that this has been killed? Thanks
No.
One can take entire courses on the law of Administrative Agencies. Or wade through hundreds of pages of Gellhorn & Byse. Here is the short version – with all of the vices of short versions.
Agencies are usually authorized to issue (“promulgate”) regulations.
Agency regulations come in two types (depending on the authority granted in the Agency’s organic statutes):
“Interpretive Regulations” tell the world how the Agency interprets some aspect of a regulation. They tell us in the process how the Agency will administer its authority, i.e., what positions it will take in court and what positions it will not take. However, Interpretive Regulations do not make law and are not binding on anyone. If the regulation is challenged in Court, the Court will determine for itself whether the interpretation is or is not a correct reading of the statute.
“Legislative Regulations” actually authorize an agency to “make law.” Since the legislative power is, under our Constitution, limited to Congress, the extent to which agencies can be authorized to make policy decisions is limited; sometimes, and at least originally, Legislative Regulations were referred to as “fill in the blank” regulations.
An example: Congress is concerned about people driving too fast in national parks. But it doesn’t want to set a single, one-size-fits-all speed limit, because the terrain and road design varies in different parks or parts of parks. So it passes a statute creating the National Park Speeding Agency, and in the statute it authorizes the NPSA to promulgate speed limit regulations for various parks, telling it to take into account terrain, sight distances, road width and grade, and a bunch of other parameters.
If a Legislative Regulation is challenged in Court, the legal issue is not whether the Agency’s decision is “right” or “wrong,” but whether it is a rational application of the criteria specified in the Agency’s statute, and is backed up by at least some rationally-based evidence. If so, the Legislative Regulation is binding on people, and violations of it can be penalized.
As you may have observed, BATFE's organic statute authorizes it to promulgate only Interpretive Regulations, not also Legislative Regulations. As a result, the issue in Cargill was whether a bump stock made a semi-auto into a “machine gun” as defined by Congress, not whether doing so was good policy or a reasonable application of some guiding criteria.
To some extent, and when all of this first came about (about 1900 with respect to meat packing safety), it made sense. For a whole bunch of rational reasons it wouldn't be practical for all of the Senators and Congressmen to go wandering around mid-west slaughter houses and pig pens. The problem is that a benign baby grew into an untamed monster. On the one hand, it was altogether to easy for elected Senators and Congressmen to delegate the responsibility for making policy judgments to someone else – and thus to duck the wrath of constituents who didn’t like the rules that came out. Simultaneously, it became all too tempting for people in the Executive Branch to avoid Congress altogether and make new laws without the hassle of having to get enough people in Congress to agree.
That is why today, while our Constitution refers to three branches of government, we actually have four. The people who run the Fourth Branch are not elected and don’t have to worry about getting reelected, only about ticking off their boss.
Superimposed on this is one other issue. Today it is common for people who can’t get something they want through Congress – or who for whatever reason don’t want to try – to complain about “Congressional inaction.” In point of fact, the framers of our Constitution were almost as afraid of a national legislature as they had been of a British king. If someone comes up with a bright idea that isn’t so bright that they can get the required votes in Congress to enact it, and it therefore doesn’t get enacted, that is exactly what our framers intended and desired.
Sorry for the lecture, I’ll go back to sleep now.
This sounds like a reason to throw out the tax law and rewrite it so it can be understood and not twisted and manipulated. The result shouldn't be more that a couple hundred pages.
Then it wouldn't need constant interpretation, and there would be a big decline in tax lawyers too.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 49,100
- Likes
- 36,650
SEC v. Jarkesky is also interesting. It looks like it deprives agencies of the right run their own judiciary that has full and final authority over the levey of punishment in terms of fines, as it deprives defendants of the right for trial buy jury.
If I understand this correctly, it means that someone accused of violating USPS hazmat regulations (mailing lithium batteries or live ammo for example), or assessed a fine by the TSA has the right to have their offense adjudicated in a jury trial rather than an agency's administrative hearing.
If I understand this correctly, it means that someone accused of violating USPS hazmat regulations (mailing lithium batteries or live ammo for example), or assessed a fine by the TSA has the right to have their offense adjudicated in a jury trial rather than an agency's administrative hearing.
Last edited:
This
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2020
- Messages
- 1,808
- Likes
- 2,074
MA AWB case that was ruled constitutional using Chevron. It was appealed all the way up to SCOTUS but was refused because, at the time, they wanted to take Bruen. Now, there is an opportunity to request re-hearing with SCOTUS due to an invalid decision using Chevron. SCOTUS will kick it back down and invalidate the lower court decision. The lower circuit will have no choice but to overturn the AWB just like it did with "may issue" after Bruen decision.
Magazine capacity from RI was another one. Chevron was used to rule on almost all 2A cases that were argued in the first district court.
P.S. You may want to refer to RKG's post as I may have misinterpreted how MA AWB was argued by the sate. RKG's post
Last edited:
se below
This one is huge and the first thing I thought of.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Getting rid of QI for police would be the ultimate hat trick for SCOTUS and would hopefully calm the savage beasts we have running around in uniforms.
Similar threads
