This is a really good -- and vitally important -- summary for people to understand why our nation has lost its way, and what needs to be done to reclaim governance by We the People.
Often overlooked in the metastasis of Chevron deference is the impact it has had on legislation. Elected representatives, always looking out for their next re-election, will write and vote for laws that administrative Tumors can interpret however they wish. And those elected representatives evade accountability with "That wasn't what I voted for because the administrative department is interpreting it incorrectly but there is nothing I can do about it." Everyone on the DC cocktail circuit wins!
Most of the federal administrative state exists outside the bounds of the United States Constitution. The Constitution enumerates and grants very limited powers to the federal government. Powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people by the Tenth Amendment. Congress has overstepped its authority creating unconstitutional agencies, like the Departments of Health and Human Services (along with all its subagencies) and the Department of Education. The courts have repeatedly failed to reign in Congress and the unconstitutional usurpation of power by federal agencies. Past practice, erroneous judgement, failure to act or time never makes the illegal “legal.” We desperately need a reckoning, a return to our Constitutional foundation of a very limited federal government.
unfortunately, once upon a time "illegal" is now legal and enables the administrative state to now exploit moral hazard opportunities. God Help America.
And such a blessing NOT: Today is the 78th anniversary of the day the United Nations Charter entered into force. Today, the UN — and even the U.S. president — recognizes this day as “United Nations Day.”
Whoa, Justice Kennedy, come on. He alone is the one Justice responsible for the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. And it was he that sustained the agency’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, one of its most significant regulatory programs ever. The D.C. Circuit (authored by Brett Kavanaugh) had struck down the EPA rule on the ground that it lacked sufficient congressional authority, yet Kennedy sided with the agency when the case reached the Court.
Kennedy’s influence on the Clean Water Act was just as awful. At every turn he blocked Scalia’s reasonable tests, like the use the dictionary definition of ‘waters ’ instead of Kennedy’s version of a “significant nexus” test; and Kennedy blocked Scalia’s efforts to place significant constitutional limits on environmental law’s reach; he also rejected Scalia’s attempt to limit Article III standing to enforce federal environmental law; he impeded Scalia’s effort to impose a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings test that would have rendered unconstitutional state and federal laws that restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas. Before Scalia passed in 2016, he was on the record as saying Chevron Deference should never have been a tool used by the Court.
I have followed this topic for a couple of decades because of my regulatory background and extreme interest in and knowledge of Agenda 21.
I admit I am taking a break from a big house cleaning and just skimmed the article, but Wikipedia seems to have missed the biggest Chevron Deference case to date, West Virginia vs EPA that has so far resulted in the reopening of at least four pulverized coal power fired power plants. WV vs EPA has been used as precedent in other cases, particularly against ATF successfully. This also suggests a majority of the Supreme Court is likely to consign Chevron Deference to the ash heap of history, if you will pardon my use of the term. I have heard West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (running for governor this cycle) speak about this case. He was discouraged by previous failures, but decided to give it one more try and won! West Virginia’s future is Marcellus and Utica gas and liquids and most of the rest of the coal is exported for metallurgical applications, but this five generation Virginian/West Virginian is proud of this shot across the bow of the administrative state!
I'm not of any legal mind but I was blessed with a family father in law as a state supreme court judge.
Back in 1984 the lower court cases had the duty to assess most all product liability cases to the process of a proper verdict.
And did so with vim and vigor.
Leaving the DC highest court the time and stature to insure justice was served and not bought and paid for. Hence, the lobbyist was spawned from the swamps.
Special interest groups and big dogs like Gates and Crew had created soft sounding nicely named companies to slink into the fabric of the already planned NWO. You can recall George Bush senior announced on live Tv with regularity the NWO agenda. Just one of the main reasons why 3 letter orgs could give a dam what you and I think. And the courts say they docket is too plump already. The lower courts not doing it's duty well enough.
Excellent writeup and analyses! Was aware of practices but not in terms of Chevron. IMO Chevron fails to reflect the realities of our elected officials and the bent and the actual levels of 'expertise' of the Administrative State/Bureaucracies. In the last week, Sen Buck cavalierly advised of broadbrushing law so the 'expert regulators' would take over. Having spent considerable time and in view of current equity/wok hiring and promotion practices - I seriously question whether even-handed expertise is available. I'd have to reflect some on whether a serious tightening on law makers law making practices and Schedule F would be enough for the Courts to justify their Chevron approach.
In the instant case I'm amazed. It has been my impression that federal agencies were required to assess and justify impacts on industries their regs would effect. Here it appears to me the impact is likely most unacceptable.
One hopes Chevron goes down!
Who knew 3+:years ago all the impressive new knowledge and skills you would so quickly and effectively develop? We are SO VERY Fortunate! I join the chorus of appreciation!
I consider myself a pretty patient man. MUCH more patient than most people younger than I.
If MY patience is being tested to the point of having to be careful what I print in social media, I can only imagine what many of those others are feeling like doing by now.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS will correct this abhorrent mistake on their own.
Incredible post. This deference was recently cited in a lawsuit with Dept of Veteran Affairs to deny redress for wounded veterans. It's maddening. Thank you!
Who needs a Dictator for Life when you have a Bureaucracy for Life. For a deep understanding of the insidious tentacles of the Leviathan, check out Sundance at “The Conservative Treehouse” - “Go Deep”
POTUS has been a figurehead, and congress a rubber stamp for 60 years. As for the supremes, we will soon see what the current court is made of. You are certainly correct that '24 seems like it may turn out to be a tectonic election year. It better be. I don't think this country will survive another cycle of the same ole.
I'm sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves knowing the checks and balances they created have been repeatedly circumvented.
Speaking of the PREP Act and doctrines I would argue that as a condition of receiving the government distributed and administered jab you lose your constitutional rights is a violation of the
Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions.
The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions posits that if
the government is prohibited from directly limiting the exercise
of constitutional rights in a given situation, the government
may not achieve the same result indirectly by offering benefits
subject to the condition that the recipients waive their constitutional rights.
A small push back on your speculation that Chevron may be in trouble using Roberts and Kennedy (who left in 2016) based on their dissent in the City of Arlington, TX v FCC court opinion. They were not objecting to excessive Chevron deference to agencies per se; they wanted the suit remanded back to the lower court because the lower court relied on the agency saying it had the authority instead of taking the steps to decide on its own the FCC was entitled to deference. Roberts: “But before a court may grant such deference, it must on its own decide whether Congress—the branch vested with lawmaking authority under the Constitution—has in fact delegated to the agency lawmaking power over the ambiguity at issue.” and (“The question whether Congress has delegated to an agency the authority to provide an interpretation that carries the force of law is for the judge to answer independently.”).
Having these dissenting comments available is a reminder that taking on the administrative state is both complex and serious business the courts must get right to bind the constraints of the Constitution on its abusers.
Just spent time reading the opinion and the dissent - no fun.
I only did it because I remember when that case started in the court system in 2009. I don't believe the FCC proposed a rule-making in the Federal Register so interested parties could provide their input directly with the FCC. The municipalities were forced to use the courts to plead their case. It was obvious the FCC would win because because the wireless carriers were forced by the FCC to deploy the wireless networks within a set time frame or lose the licenses they paid dearly for during the FCC's auction. If they could not get their cell towers up - well no wireless serve would be deployed. Congress surely gave them full control - no doubt about it.
Our neighbors sat and protested the placement of a 5/g tower in the neighborhood (on the boulevard) They won somehow, with all of the neighbors support. Oh, these incremental wins...
The FCC has strict rules on all aspects of cell towers especially height. Back in the day, community concerns were mainly with aesthetics. Because the wireless companies are now deploying 5th generation technology, which allows more users without service degradation, there are concerns that signal strength is more likely to be detrimental to humans. During the early days of Covid, March 2020, Trump signed the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020. Europeans did not want to deploy it because of EMF radiation concerns so the US Act includes terms for the US to push EU countries to use 5g. It is quite the controversy and I do not fault neighborhoods for being concerned. It appears that the maximum level of RF exposure was raised under this study: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
Even as law students we were taught that it was elementary that courts determine what a law means (as well as its constitutionality) and that administrative agencies simply administer the laws that the legislature passes. The analogue to medicine might be that a high fever is an indication of an infection or not to move someone with a severe neck trauma. Just basic, bedrock principles as well as common sense. As such, the Chevron deference doctrine has always been a total abomination. If the Court doesn't get this right, I doubt any of the sitting justices should remain on the bench. And, yes it really is that obvious that courts should not defer to bureaucrats and apparatchiks.
Scientific technical truth simply does not exist. Truths are decided by communities - and the most powerful communities - our ruling bureaucracies, decide what is truth and declare it to be "science."
When do you sleep?
This is a really good -- and vitally important -- summary for people to understand why our nation has lost its way, and what needs to be done to reclaim governance by We the People.
thank you!
Often overlooked in the metastasis of Chevron deference is the impact it has had on legislation. Elected representatives, always looking out for their next re-election, will write and vote for laws that administrative Tumors can interpret however they wish. And those elected representatives evade accountability with "That wasn't what I voted for because the administrative department is interpreting it incorrectly but there is nothing I can do about it." Everyone on the DC cocktail circuit wins!
Most of the federal administrative state exists outside the bounds of the United States Constitution. The Constitution enumerates and grants very limited powers to the federal government. Powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people by the Tenth Amendment. Congress has overstepped its authority creating unconstitutional agencies, like the Departments of Health and Human Services (along with all its subagencies) and the Department of Education. The courts have repeatedly failed to reign in Congress and the unconstitutional usurpation of power by federal agencies. Past practice, erroneous judgement, failure to act or time never makes the illegal “legal.” We desperately need a reckoning, a return to our Constitutional foundation of a very limited federal government.
unfortunately, once upon a time "illegal" is now legal and enables the administrative state to now exploit moral hazard opportunities. God Help America.
No person is illegal!
My neighbor's lawn signs informed me of that.
Along with hate has no home here. (yes I'm being sarcastic)
And such a blessing NOT: Today is the 78th anniversary of the day the United Nations Charter entered into force. Today, the UN — and even the U.S. president — recognizes this day as “United Nations Day.”
It's a tad older than I am.
Dismantling of these agencies is necessary if we are ever to have a functioning constitutional republic again.
Whoa, Justice Kennedy, come on. He alone is the one Justice responsible for the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. And it was he that sustained the agency’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, one of its most significant regulatory programs ever. The D.C. Circuit (authored by Brett Kavanaugh) had struck down the EPA rule on the ground that it lacked sufficient congressional authority, yet Kennedy sided with the agency when the case reached the Court.
Kennedy’s influence on the Clean Water Act was just as awful. At every turn he blocked Scalia’s reasonable tests, like the use the dictionary definition of ‘waters ’ instead of Kennedy’s version of a “significant nexus” test; and Kennedy blocked Scalia’s efforts to place significant constitutional limits on environmental law’s reach; he also rejected Scalia’s attempt to limit Article III standing to enforce federal environmental law; he impeded Scalia’s effort to impose a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings test that would have rendered unconstitutional state and federal laws that restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas. Before Scalia passed in 2016, he was on the record as saying Chevron Deference should never have been a tool used by the Court.
I have followed this topic for a couple of decades because of my regulatory background and extreme interest in and knowledge of Agenda 21.
I admit I am taking a break from a big house cleaning and just skimmed the article, but Wikipedia seems to have missed the biggest Chevron Deference case to date, West Virginia vs EPA that has so far resulted in the reopening of at least four pulverized coal power fired power plants. WV vs EPA has been used as precedent in other cases, particularly against ATF successfully. This also suggests a majority of the Supreme Court is likely to consign Chevron Deference to the ash heap of history, if you will pardon my use of the term. I have heard West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (running for governor this cycle) speak about this case. He was discouraged by previous failures, but decided to give it one more try and won! West Virginia’s future is Marcellus and Utica gas and liquids and most of the rest of the coal is exported for metallurgical applications, but this five generation Virginian/West Virginian is proud of this shot across the bow of the administrative state!
V WA vs EPA was a huge win, but I do not recall that Chevron deference was cited - but that is probably my ignorance showing
Bravo!
I'm not of any legal mind but I was blessed with a family father in law as a state supreme court judge.
Back in 1984 the lower court cases had the duty to assess most all product liability cases to the process of a proper verdict.
And did so with vim and vigor.
Leaving the DC highest court the time and stature to insure justice was served and not bought and paid for. Hence, the lobbyist was spawned from the swamps.
Special interest groups and big dogs like Gates and Crew had created soft sounding nicely named companies to slink into the fabric of the already planned NWO. You can recall George Bush senior announced on live Tv with regularity the NWO agenda. Just one of the main reasons why 3 letter orgs could give a dam what you and I think. And the courts say they docket is too plump already. The lower courts not doing it's duty well enough.
Excellent writeup and analyses! Was aware of practices but not in terms of Chevron. IMO Chevron fails to reflect the realities of our elected officials and the bent and the actual levels of 'expertise' of the Administrative State/Bureaucracies. In the last week, Sen Buck cavalierly advised of broadbrushing law so the 'expert regulators' would take over. Having spent considerable time and in view of current equity/wok hiring and promotion practices - I seriously question whether even-handed expertise is available. I'd have to reflect some on whether a serious tightening on law makers law making practices and Schedule F would be enough for the Courts to justify their Chevron approach.
In the instant case I'm amazed. It has been my impression that federal agencies were required to assess and justify impacts on industries their regs would effect. Here it appears to me the impact is likely most unacceptable.
One hopes Chevron goes down!
Who knew 3+:years ago all the impressive new knowledge and skills you would so quickly and effectively develop? We are SO VERY Fortunate! I join the chorus of appreciation!
Bestest Ever! ♡♡♡
I consider myself a pretty patient man. MUCH more patient than most people younger than I.
If MY patience is being tested to the point of having to be careful what I print in social media, I can only imagine what many of those others are feeling like doing by now.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS will correct this abhorrent mistake on their own.
In America we say what we damned well please.
Please remember that.
In that case, when are your visiting hours in prison?
In America we used to have justice.
Please remember THAT while you're saying what you please.
And if we knuckle under to this tyranny we are truly lost.
We're likely a little different in how we fight.
I don't talk much when I'm fighting.
We are not.
You talk to reasonable people
Understood, and agreed.
Ha! What have you said to your neighbor about the signs?
I just can't wait to put up my Trump signs.
You go guy! I've never taken mine down - but then again no one sees mine.
Incredible post. This deference was recently cited in a lawsuit with Dept of Veteran Affairs to deny redress for wounded veterans. It's maddening. Thank you!
Great Work!
Who needs a Dictator for Life when you have a Bureaucracy for Life. For a deep understanding of the insidious tentacles of the Leviathan, check out Sundance at “The Conservative Treehouse” - “Go Deep”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/?s=Go+deep
Great information! Thanks for putting this together! EXCITING!!!
Drain The Friggin Administrative Swamp!!!
POTUS has been a figurehead, and congress a rubber stamp for 60 years. As for the supremes, we will soon see what the current court is made of. You are certainly correct that '24 seems like it may turn out to be a tectonic election year. It better be. I don't think this country will survive another cycle of the same ole.
I'm sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves knowing the checks and balances they created have been repeatedly circumvented.
Speaking of the PREP Act and doctrines I would argue that as a condition of receiving the government distributed and administered jab you lose your constitutional rights is a violation of the
Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions.
The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions posits that if
the government is prohibited from directly limiting the exercise
of constitutional rights in a given situation, the government
may not achieve the same result indirectly by offering benefits
subject to the condition that the recipients waive their constitutional rights.
http://www.rbs2.com/duc.pdf
A small push back on your speculation that Chevron may be in trouble using Roberts and Kennedy (who left in 2016) based on their dissent in the City of Arlington, TX v FCC court opinion. They were not objecting to excessive Chevron deference to agencies per se; they wanted the suit remanded back to the lower court because the lower court relied on the agency saying it had the authority instead of taking the steps to decide on its own the FCC was entitled to deference. Roberts: “But before a court may grant such deference, it must on its own decide whether Congress—the branch vested with lawmaking authority under the Constitution—has in fact delegated to the agency lawmaking power over the ambiguity at issue.” and (“The question whether Congress has delegated to an agency the authority to provide an interpretation that carries the force of law is for the judge to answer independently.”).
Having these dissenting comments available is a reminder that taking on the administrative state is both complex and serious business the courts must get right to bind the constraints of the Constitution on its abusers.
There you go again, Shelley, knocking it out of the park.
Just spent time reading the opinion and the dissent - no fun.
I only did it because I remember when that case started in the court system in 2009. I don't believe the FCC proposed a rule-making in the Federal Register so interested parties could provide their input directly with the FCC. The municipalities were forced to use the courts to plead their case. It was obvious the FCC would win because because the wireless carriers were forced by the FCC to deploy the wireless networks within a set time frame or lose the licenses they paid dearly for during the FCC's auction. If they could not get their cell towers up - well no wireless serve would be deployed. Congress surely gave them full control - no doubt about it.
Our neighbors sat and protested the placement of a 5/g tower in the neighborhood (on the boulevard) They won somehow, with all of the neighbors support. Oh, these incremental wins...
The FCC has strict rules on all aspects of cell towers especially height. Back in the day, community concerns were mainly with aesthetics. Because the wireless companies are now deploying 5th generation technology, which allows more users without service degradation, there are concerns that signal strength is more likely to be detrimental to humans. During the early days of Covid, March 2020, Trump signed the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020. Europeans did not want to deploy it because of EMF radiation concerns so the US Act includes terms for the US to push EU countries to use 5g. It is quite the controversy and I do not fault neighborhoods for being concerned. It appears that the maximum level of RF exposure was raised under this study: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
RFK Jr.’s Children's Health Defense posted this article at the time: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/electromagnetic-radiation-wireless/
Even as law students we were taught that it was elementary that courts determine what a law means (as well as its constitutionality) and that administrative agencies simply administer the laws that the legislature passes. The analogue to medicine might be that a high fever is an indication of an infection or not to move someone with a severe neck trauma. Just basic, bedrock principles as well as common sense. As such, the Chevron deference doctrine has always been a total abomination. If the Court doesn't get this right, I doubt any of the sitting justices should remain on the bench. And, yes it really is that obvious that courts should not defer to bureaucrats and apparatchiks.
Scientific technical truth simply does not exist. Truths are decided by communities - and the most powerful communities - our ruling bureaucracies, decide what is truth and declare it to be "science."