Supreme Court appears ready to limit federal agency powers
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- The Supreme Court is putting the power of federal agencies on the chopping block. The latest case before the justices could forever change the way the government operates. Craig Green, law professor at Temple University, joins CBS News to explain.
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News CZcams channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Chevron Deference gives power to an unelected agency to create law, judge whether the law was broken and set fines and jail time. Those powers were separated into three branches by the US Constitution to constrain unfettered abuse of power with checks and balances.
Mary God forgive 🙏 ya'll. If you can't stand up for the true law. You need to get out. Ya'll won't get out because ya'll don't believe in being true Americans running America !!!!! Stop the fake sex effender law's......
Exactly
Its funny because Amerigo wasnt the first to discover, visit, etc.. Just the first to be hateful enough to natives to be allowed recognition!! History matters!
I can’t find the amendment in the constitution on chevron deference, can you show me where it is located?
I have been screaming this for years! Bravo!
The ATF does not have the authority to create a "rule" that carries the weight of a felony without Congress.
Also, how can they have an unpayable tax?
@@explosives101 ♥️
Sure it does. ATF created by Congress. So the ATF has all the weight of the legislative body that created it.
No it doesn't, the constitution makes this clear. This agency crap is just lazy congress not doing its job
@@skylark1250🤡🤡🤡
This dude conflating unchecked authoritarian agencies with democracy is bananas 😂
they are checked. the directors are confirmed by Congress and they function based on law.
The deepstate isn't stupid or crazy, it's evil.
This exactly. People have lost their minds. This guy is certifiable.
@@roc7880the RULES they make are not checked…..
how dare they not give these govt agencies unchecked power lol
And they never motioned the name of the case or what it was about.
The case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and they are fighting to stop a federal agency from enforcing a rule that the agency made up on its own, requiring the fishing industry to pay for at-sea monitoring. It is basically a tax the public never got a chance to discuss, congress never passed, and the president never signed.
Thank you!
yeah, real balanced reporting wasn't it.....
They will overfish and ruin everything. The agency should and will continue oversee it
@@Rayzeowrong. The natives are destroying the fish population with overfishing and predatory wildlife protection (like seals and sea otters) have caused an explosion in population. Guess what their favorite food is.... That's right, fish. It's a matter of mismanagement and laws that allow for exploitation.
The overseer cost the boat 700 bux a day. that's a tax not passed by congress.@@Rayzeo
Anyone who has dealt with a government agency can tell you that these agencies operate in their own universe … Often to the detriment of any common sense. Overreach is common and redress almost impossible. Let’s face facts- people who work for the government are typically not the cream of the crop. They tend to be petty bureaucrats with little to no grasp of the “laws” (actually fiat judgements) that govern almost all economic activity in this nation. Best part, it is almost impossible to fire them or hold them to account.
So So True.
Omg, the Supreme Court gonna make our legislators and reps actually WORK?!?! That’s not what they signed up for… oh the horror, quite literally….
🤣🤣🤣‼️ Good one, thanks for the laugh👍🤠🤣‼️
Finally, a sarcastic but equally accurate description of what is going on.
When government grinds to a halt freedoms are preserved.
"...will cut off dozens if not hundreds of agencies at the knees, and stop them from 'filling in gaps' and setting standards..." Sounds good to me! The Executive was never meant to be used in this way, and it's high time the Federal Government had some REAL checks - and dare I say balances - on their power. They've become far too used to having neither for far too long.
ATF is done. Congress needs to be held to account for their inability to regulate governmental agencies.
Did you not read the 1st comment? This is it and it's a fact that "The authority to create law is expressly delegated to the Congress exclusively." Their job isn't to "regulate"
Congress needs to be held accountable......because the supreme court will not be.....isn't that right Clarence? Alito? Barrette?
Cavanah?
@@roberttaylor9563 liking your own post, what is this reddit?
@@miked7011 What exactly do you think laws do?
@@worndown8280 The regulation is not done by congress period! That's not how things work
The only thing these “agencies” should be doing is reporting back their findings and opinions to congress. Congress is the only body of government that should be creating laws. The FDA, CDC, ATF, DEA, and every other government agency should report their recommendations to congress, who then enacts laws and/or rules. They shouldn’t have the power to enact rules/laws themselves.
Tell that to the Fauci fan club...possibly the most gullible folks on the planet.
The FDA doesn't enact laws though its responsible to reinforcing regulations and issuing guidance.
@@alexsmith1207 The FDA implements “rules”.
Rules that can be enforced with financial penalties and/or other punishments the FDA sees fit. That’s no different than a law. The words “rule” and “law” can really be used interchangeably. They are basically the same thing due to this unconstitutional law that SCOTUS hopefully overturns.
The authority to create law is expressly deligated to the Congress exclusively.
Rule and law are different things
@@porthosduvallon5301 due process and the will of the American voters are direct threats to "our democracy"! ♥️
@@porthosduvallon5301 it's illegal for the ATF to create a law that makes you a felon.
It's also illegal for the ATF to create a rule that makes you a felon without Congressional delegation
@@porthosduvallon5301 While "Rules" can send you to jail
@user-fd4jb9wk7c - you didn't hear the Professor? He just said that Congress is the one who created these agencies so what's your argument?
A poorly crafted op-ed, even though the box in the lower left hand corner proclaimed it as news. So many of the rules supported by Chevron have been promulgated to advance a political agenda, not a manifestation of expertise of the regulatory agency.
I didn't realize clean air and water, and safe food was a political agenda. My eyes have been opened! (Until they need replacing in the future because of polluted whatevers)
These agencies should only be allowed to advise Congress, not make laws. The process was meant to be a deliberative process, not immediate. That Congress has abdicated its duty as lawmakers to these agencies is abhorrent. Time to end this process.
@@rwefree9469 And yet the US Congress literally decides through the law, what teeth Americans receiving Medicaid get to keep, and what teeth Medicaid recipients don't need. Are legislators professionally qualified to make health decisions for Medicaid recipients? But that's the law.
@@stevenmitchell1 I don’t know if what you wrote is true as you didn’t post the actual language but even if it is, at least with elected officials you have recourse to address the issue. With unelected bureaucrats making regs and laws, you don’t.
I little snarky, are we? The Supreme Court doesn't "limit federal agency powers," it interprets The Constitution that does.
Well said - thank you!
The Supreme Court isn't always correct with their interpretations. They are suspect to interpret based on their own ideology! We rarely have decisions that are unanimous. If You opposes Federal Agencies to make suggestions on regulations then You should be able to oppose and review Supreme Court interpretations. The Supreme Court is composed of unelected officials with lifetime appointments who are rarely held to oversight by any branch of government. Like every government elected or appointed official, they make mistakes!
Too bad they think laws should be based on religious opinions.
@@lorrainekopp6504 They're trying to codify their religious ideology into law.
Expect nothing less from the source lol
Craig Green is looking at this on a regulatory basis. It's being challenged because the agencies are creating criminal law. The 3 letter agencies will still be able to regulate whatever it is they oversee; they just won't be able to make "laws" that carry criminal penalties. Like bump stocks. For 10-15 years they were legal and then the new head of the BATFE makes them illegal with a felony charge for possession. If congress wants them illegal, then pass a law. But don't just come to work one day and say, "I want those things (whatever it is) made illegal" and use Chevron Doctrine to do it. That my friends, is called usurping the constitution an act that is illegal on it's own.
@prependedprepended6606 that is the whole goal of this professors rhetoric. Just shout "unsafe" and " they are destroying democracy "...both complete gaslighting BTW and people who don't understand the constitution or how laws are made fall in lock step. By allowing unelected agency officials to have zero accountability and total authority to make laws that criminalize citizens, you allow for complete AUTHORITARISNISM. That should be what everyone sees as unsafe. It is also "undemocraric". Losing our country is what is at stake. That is not hyperbolic.
A very narrow viewpoint, and one that could be used to make the opposite point. If a law is illegal, the remedy is taking that law to the courts rather than dismantling regulation. This is the next Citizens United.
@prependedprepended6606 This is exactly what it's about. Craig Green and all the rest of the libs/democrats will tell you that these agencies won't be able to regulate, which is totally bogus. It has everything to do with say, the EPA saying regular gas is now illegal to use, and now if we catch you, can be fined $10,000 and 5 years in prison. Chevron Doctrine is a bureaucratic way around the constitution to deprive rights under color of law, without congress making that law.
@@loomspace You can't have appointed bureaucrats of 3 letter agencies making laws with criminal penalties as the political wind blows. So, yes it needs to be very narrow to keep the agency in check.
@@loomspace Laws are debated by the people's elected representatives, giving the people a chance to make their wishes known to their representatives ahead of time. What the Chevron deference enables is not laws but regulations, created at will by unelected bureaucrats without input from the people, their representatives, and often without specific oversight from the President (whose branch isn't responsible for creating laws in the first place). There is often a comment period available when a regulation is published to the Federal Register, but sometimes agencies skip over that - and even when the people who do comment and those comments overwhelmingly go against the proposed regulation, the agencies can ignore them and go forward with the regulation anyway.
How many people have the resources to fight a legal battle against a federal agency, in some cases up to SCOTUS? If that is the only remedy, then only corporations and better-funded special interest groups have any real ability to go up against the taxpayer-funded US government to resist wrong-headed regulations, even when the effect of those regulations have real and severe consequences for individuals.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate its legislative power. Even if Congress could delegate this power, granting this power to the Executive Branch undermines our entire system of government because it defeats the protections provided by separation of powers.
Well since the founding fathers didn't know about modern medicine, Germs, or effect of oil, kinda seems like the EPA and FDA are pretty good agencies to have
It is not so much delegated to the executive branch. It's more like just delegated out into the thin air. But you are right, it then gets picked up by the executive branch, although it is supposedly answerable to Congress who created it in the first place. Someone here said it was a fourth branch of the government, and that seems accurate at this point.
@@Mrjonnyjonjon123The FDA alone kills millions every year with the poison sprayed on to our good, look at Johnson's baby powder,they knew it caused cancer but still allowed it be sold giving millions of people cancer!
Ahhh there's a fabricated problem and the government has the solution.
You going to fall for this again?
Why does 2024 feel like the folks aboard Willy Wonka's boat about to enter the tu Nelson of horrors?
"reduce the freedom that the agencies have?" That is specifically what the constitution was written for to limit government and retain our freedom.
The MSM is the enemy of our constitutional republic.
corporations have bought the court that’s who is ruling the country , because republicans are not interested in governing, just culture wars ! With a do nothing legislature, there is no order or protections for the People! See the big picture
This! This right here! The Constitution is written describing what the Government can and CAN'T do. Three branches are there to balance power. The agencies are being created to bridge these checks and balances and make subjects of the citizens.
Absolutely. If Congress cannot handle the input and advice from these agencies to make laws, then maybe these agencies are not needed. Scale back government. These agencies should not have the authority to make laws only suggest them.
Freedom to do what? Eat DDT?
These government agencies have gone way over the top. It’s time to bring them back.
The case in question is about requiring fishermen to have on board and pay for federal monitors of their activities, on vessels which are sized to get business done without the accommodations for extra people not contributing to the business. There was another case a few years ago where a farmer wanted to do something with a pond on his land (not connected to any water way serving anyone else) but the EPA decided it basically owns every puddle in America and tried to deny him doing what he wanted on his land. Then there's the ATF, making and changing its mind about how to regulate laws when the text hasn't changed in decades. If you want to talk about the New Deal, you can take it back to the notorious case where a farmer was penalized for growing extra food beyond some regulatory maximum for his own family's use only, declaring that food to be subject to the Commerce Clause when it didn't leave the farm much less cross a state line.
The regulatory state has grown tremendously since 1984 and often in ways abusive to everyday people, not merely characatures of corporate boogeymen. The covid response is exhibit A of why these self-interested "experts" need to be reined in, not given ever more leeway.
Wrapping a fundamentally anti-democratic system of the people voting for vague ideas then having no say in the ultimate regulations which implement those ideas (which can change at any time and which may put them in prison if they don't stay up to speed on the latest developments in the Federal Register) is tyranny, no matter how much some try to wrap it in the banner of democracy anyway.
We should demand that our fellow citizens be informed on the issues and send to the Congress members who are similarly informed. They don't need to be experts, and they can consult experts when crafting laws, but those consultations must be balanced with determining what the people actually want and what they're actually willing to trade to get a law passed.
The idea that the people can't really be trusted with determining their own best interests, either collectively or individually, is not a new one - and the Chevron deference has long been a favored mechanism for elites to take power from the people and place it in the hands of an anointed few, for the former's own good (or so the latter will argue). That "defenders" of "democracy" advance such measures so adamantly, including in the media where someone able to competently defend SCOTUS's issues with Chevron deference is not even brought in as a counterpoint to some professor obviously deeply invested in the status quo, is an excellent example of the kind of gaslighting elites will engage in to deny the people a full picture in order to achieve the elites' goals.
Well said!!
All powers not delegated to the federal goverment by the constitution belong to the states respectively, agencies don't make laws congress does, there are 3 branches of government not 4
Right
@@TimothySlickback He is 100% correct.
Hahaha you are credited with the 4th branch of government. Well observed.
Yes, power should be given back to the states and the people, where it belongs.
@@Fed-Dog, The local and State governments are the ones now writing these infringements on our Constitutional rights! Vote, Vote, Vote , Local, State, and Federal as Conservatives. If, you trade Freedom for a little Security, then you get what you deserve, Authoritarianism!
We dont have branches anymore. They are all complicit in the crimes
"We're with the government, and we're here to help". Run like the wind.
The "agencies" do NOT use expertise. They hire activists who support ideologies and spend as much money on political allies as possible. Merit is NOT a consideration in promotions. Union standing and ideology and DEI are the promotion criteria, eliminating expertise in preference of cronyism.
Exactly.
Easy to say, love to see proof
If you cannot see it you are not looking. Look at Mayorkis and his organization to start. The experts in Border Patrol have all pointed out his extreme failures.
So what you're saying is Congress has to work now?
And that is the problem the agency is not voted by the people. The congress is supposed to represent the people. We the people voted for them to do a job not get an agency that ignores the voice of the people. Get the EPA out and every agency that has been bought by big money 🤑.
Congress literally has oversight and decides funding. They make all the rules governing what agencies can do. This is just oligarchs pushing for no rules for the rich.
@@rachelk4805
That is not true. Those agencies pay big money to those in Congress. The deal is between them and Congress and the people are left without power. Just follow the money trail.
@@Honeybadger7well now that means U.S is having a corruption not seen since the roaring 20's oh wait corruption index tells me the U.S is still good with a low corruption level. 🤔
Congressional oversight...?? LOL...!! have you watched oversight hearings anytime in the past 30+ years...the bureaucrat spends the day saying as little as possible, hemming and hawing, evasive, and the Congress critters (both parties) do their politicking happily knowing they DIDN'T have to vote on anything...we the people are left holding the bag...news flash: WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, not those folks who want us to believe they are, instead...
the risk of keeping the status quo is far greater! LIMIT the Federal Government as it was intended!
The Government must ALWAYS be bigger than corporations
"We, The People" govern ourselves
Corporations should not govern "We, The People"
Check & Balances (red tape) protect citizens from unscrupulous practices
Protecting American citizens are not in the interests of corporations.
@@seveglider8406 Exactly!
Those agencies have no authority to make rules. Congress cannot write a law saying the agency can make rules. It is an article 1 violation.
We the people are against this overreach and oppression.
WAKE UP! You only speak for Yourself!
@@seveglider8406 33 updates suggests otherwise.
@@Blermie1794 33 updates confirm We the people oppose regulations which protect the American People? From which orifice did You extract this assertion? Did You survey every American citizen? Your comment is asinine! Write back when You're able to construct a cogent thought.
That guy’s nose is getting longer. He knows the reason is because we don’t want unelected bureaucrats making their own laws. The ATF and the DEA are good examples of agencies that need increased supervision.
Professor Green actually told CBS News Prime Time: "There is an argument putting Congress in charge, which means leaving no one in charge." Easily the most inane statement in the history of legal analysis.
I like how some unelected j professor somehow has a voice in this. Like his opinion means anything.
This "Professor" needs to be fired and never hired again for such an unconstitutional authoritarian BS legal theory
He is literally advocating for a dictatorship of un-elected, unaccountable, bureaucratic individuals; while surely he talks about "saving democracy" from the Orange Man, out of the other side of his mouth.
Some of these people on fake news are dangerous and they need to be held to account as well.
If you rewrite his statement it reads much better. "There is argument putting Congress in charge which means putting The People in charge." That's the way it should be. The way the founders intended. We don't need a thousand bureaucratic agencies "helping" us. We need to do it for ourselves.
Extremely well said. That's exactly what struck me, although I failed to articulate it as well as you have.@@marlberg2963
Every federal agency will still be able to do their daily tasks without Chevron. They will be able to react to disasters and anything they face. However, they won't be able to make or change the interpretation of laws. Just like how they mandated observers on fishing boats and mandated the fishing boats pay their salaries. It will also make it so that agencies, like the ATF, can't change definitions that congress put in place. Also, the ATF won't be able to change rules muliltiple times, and turn legal firearm owners into felons simply because they hadn't read the newest policy letter and continued to do what was legal the day before.
Federal agencies should be limited. They cannot pass laws, create regulations, or extort the public without approval from Congress.
And Congress should not pass laws without the authority of the people!
@@todadams6533 Pretty much!
@@todadams6533 I thought you people were against democracy because it's "mob rule".
Remember when the out of control CDC told us we MUST wear a face diaper, to keep us safe? Come to find out they do not work and do not keep us safe.
Do You actually believe the majority members of Congress understand the dangers hazardous materials have on the Environment?
Regulation, self perpetuating and always growing, is detrimental to innovation and progress.
Exactly what we need….smaller government agencies
With less power!
@@dotibrown4024 Yes, make air, water and ground pollution great again.
Hey guys, it's a rule. Sure, it carries with criminal penalties just like laws, but if we call it rule, everything should be ok.
All the 3 letter agencies need the reigns pulled back
Justice Gorsuch commented during this case that in his entire career as a jurist has he ever seen chevron deference favor an individual citizen, it always comes down in favor of the government. That's a problem in spades. Unelected bureaucrats have been wielding far too much power for far too long.
Not once did the Professor mention the US Constitution. That the issue, nowhere does the Constitution empower government agencies. The founders wanted the people through their representatives to control the government. We're a long way from that, reversing and / or eliminating agencies power and making Congress responsible to the people the way our government was designed to operate.
Congress creates laws that create agencies that gives agencies the power to create regulations.
...to which Congress has APPROVED. Many of these agencies operate outside of what Congress has approved.
@NattyNarwhaal yes. Certain regulations, they are out of control, faceless bureaucracy not answerable to the people and need to be reined in.
About time. These feds need to be reigned in.
Policies by unelected federal entities are quite different than laws made by our elected congress...... there is a reason why not just anyone can dictate to the American electorate.......
Correct
Time to cut back on federal bureaucracy
The absolute gall of Craig Green calling the limits on unelected Federal bureaucratic agencies to unilaterally create "rules" carrying the weight of felonies as "undemocratic". If that's undemocratic, then democracy can go to hell.
THIS
Consider the source.
I don't know if he didn't know better, or if he was just hoping his audience didn't. Judging by the comments here though, it's obviously far better understood by regular people than I had ever dreamed. Good on us!
@@timjefferson2137 He's a tenured university law professor, so I'm sure he knows what he's doing. He's clearly attempting to misinform the lowest common denominator. I'm however worried about the students he "teaches", because he shows a not-so-subtle authoritarian bent and disrespect of limits placed by the American Constitution.
What I find interesting is how so many people throw around “democracy” and “democratic” yet those 2 words are no where in the founding documents. I am happy to see so many comments showing that people are tuned in.
The agencies do not govern or rule. The number of federal agencies we currently have is staggering and expensive. Giving agencies power over the people is dangerous and totally against the 3 tiers of government that our constitution is based on.
What a wonderfully unbiased and neutral expert they found to explain this to us. It wasn't obvious at all what his feelings were on the issue, or what his political leanings were. I totally have respect for Temple University's ability to teach law to students after this.
Ban all agencies
They need to limit a hell of a lot of their power. The federal government's main job is to protect our borders and they suck at that .
Your guest is entirely one sided even though you asked him for both sides
I agree.
Welcome to corporate fake news.
Hello! CBS! One of the censorship networks.
End federal agency power. Limit/restrain federal government in every aspect to reduce the threat to our Constitutional, Republican government of, by and for the people.
Exactly - they are really running things at this point - all congress does is make speeches to get re-elected.
NO ONE BUT CONGRESS'S HAS THE RT TO PASS LAWS. NOT GARLAND OR WRAY, AMEN. THE HAWAIIAN 🤠 😊
Im telling jackie
That "modernity" should develop and unfold at such a pace that no one can properly understand the full phenomenon in question, or have time to carefully calibrate for all contingencies, unforeseen consequences, etc., is just baldly assumed. The real problem isn't even questioned. That's not open for debate. If we're not going to have a society built to human scale, where many more people actually have skin in the game than do currently, then we might as well drop this entire flimsy pretext about it being "democratic." Rule by "experts" is just as conducive to crony capitalism as it is to an unaccountable administrative state. And the "experts" have been wrong an awful lot to anyone with even a passing interest in history...or hell, just the last four years.
There are many agencies with vast overreach
Please name one and its example of over reach
@@redefiningmyself8598 1932, The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted the Tuskeegee Experiment to infect African Americans with diseases and see their effects. 2010, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), armed drug cartels and child traffickers with thousands of assault rifles, weapon modifications, and pistols. In the 1950's the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stalked and in 1964, tried to blackmail Martin Luther King Jr to. Supposedly they also assassinated him when that failed. In 1992, FBI and ATF agents laid siege to a family after trespassing to spy on them, shooting their dog, murdering one of their two sons, then killing their mother. In 1953, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), conducted illegal human experimentation programs using LSD, other drugs, electroshock therapy, hypnosis, isolation, sexual, verbal abuse, sensory deprivation, and other forms of torture on civilians. This went on for 20 years.
@@redefiningmyself8598ATF thinking it can regulate our second amendment, FBI colluding with the white house to censor political opponents, CIA assassinating our president, etc
@@redefiningmyself8598cia? what the cia has done to black people alone is crazy
As an American citizen my freedom is more important than the freedom of an executive agency, and the corporations seem to be doing very well under chevron deference, I can’t imagine how it could get worse if the president was no longer able to pass law through their agencies
It is, indeed, refreshing to see so many comments that show people understand this case and the (positive) ramifications. Professor Green says that a ruling against Chevron deference will cut agencies off at the knees...good!
It is good. The Constitution is based on limited government.
You don't quite understand what that would mean for you. These agencies are there to keep corporations in check. Without the checks they would run amok. There would no longer be anyone making sure your air was safe, food was safe, medications are safe, no more consumer protections. If this ends up happening all of our lives will get immeasurablely worse.
@@jonahansenYes! Soooo many people were either not taught that or just love big brother all up there shh
Well said! I was surprised too! Maybe there's some hope after all 😊
AGREED!
"Threatening" - no the agencies need to be reigned in - no the power needs to go back to congress - congress needs to oversee the agencies.
Yes and every single one of those agencies should be disbanded with no questions asked..fbi atf cia..alll agencies should be immediately revoked of power and held accountable for violating the rights of americans
Shouldn't private enterprise be held accountable for polluting the Environment? What about corporations which have produced hazardous consumables? Or do we just give them a pass?
Do you have any idea how much of your pollution and whatnot is generated by the federal government...? you are completely glossing over the point, we the people don't mind regulation, but not regulation never voted on by elected officials...if the FDA wants to inspect meat imports from foreign countries, fine...Congress can write the exact law required, and the FDA can enforce that law, just not make up new rules and regulations...
@@JohnPublic-dk7zd exactly
@@JohnPublic-dk7zd The goal is to protect every American citizen and make sure any individual, corporation or government agency isn't polluting the Environment or distributing products which are dangerous! . Only credulous numbskulls believe corporations will self regulate. If you oppose regulations on pollution and consumables, then don't complain when then water You drink is polluted or the food You eat is contaminated!
as an average american, what i heard was the agencies "fill in the gaps" meaning that an agency or unelected officials are coming up with answers to problems. that my friends isnt democracy. now congress having the power to determine that is deomcracy.
Because what I want is my congressman determining how many parts per million of plastic is okay to be in the water supply. They definitely won’t just sign off on whatever their donors want, lmao
@@soren1803 but you want ppl who have thier own interests and less in the limelight to determine it? As is the point of the first comment it's not democracy. And yes congress and the legislative branch should 200% be the ones determining Federal laws. Including the micro details like how much plastic. The agencies are there to fulfill the laws not to determine their own.
@@soren1803 I would say an easy split which wasn't brought up was make positions in the agencies who determine these "fill ins" to be voted in positions and we could have it both ways.
@@soren1803As if unelected people wouldn’t have more reason to accept bribes since they are out of the limelight
You dont get it. Bureaucrats are even worse than members of US Congress.
At least with Congress you can VOTE to remove them.
Where is the process for WE THE PEOPLE, to remove corrupt, power-abusing federal bureaucrats and their agencies, who were NOT elected, but APPOINTED!
You are lacking in wisdom and have a lot to learn@@soren1803
So not letting government bureacratic agencies make de facto law is a bad thing ? Like the EPA telling you that you can’t build a cow pond on your own land without their approval ! Somebody has to rein in these people who are immune to prosecution or damages !
It's high time agencies got reined in
I like safe food, medicine, air & water. The last 40 years have proven that those with money only want more at the expense of everyone else. Right to work states show decreasing life expectancy of its citizens on average, corresponding to income & educational levels. The rich just keep getting richer.
The CDC, DOJ, EPA, etc, need to watch out!
So We should expect all private enterprise to self regulate? WAKE UP & GET REAL!
And so is Homeland security finally my tio can travel now
'...self regulate...' is not the question...WHERE the regulations come from is the crux of the matter...
@@JohnPublic-dk7zd The crux of the matter is to protect the American people from polluters and any entity which is distributing hazardous products! Regulations come from our elected officials!
@@seveglider8406 right now what we the people have is the fox guarding the henhouse...your regulations have become distortions of the public will...the 'polluters' you so desperately fear are the ones dictating the rules and regulations, and it is not just the EPA...big pharma runs the CDC...big oil runs the NEA...the military/industrial complex has it's fingers in a half dozen agencies...too big to fail banks run the SEC...the list goes on and on...get the picture...??
This needs to happen. The Constitution was written a certain way for a reason. Government agencies need to stop overstepping their bounds and it's about time the supreme Court limits them. Let Congress do their job and if Congress doesn't want to make rules about something then we don't need them.
If we abolished all these agencies, this wouldn't be a problem. Congress should do their job, and create law. Not bureaucracies that end up under the control of the White House. Was never intended. Nor Should it be.
WHO DO YOU THINK ENFORCES THESE REGULATIONS? GOD?
Don't be stupid...enforcement and creating spurious regulations TWO different things...
The law professor is so very wrong. The Chevron deference does not pass Constitutional muster. However, there is a very reasonable way to deal with his objections. Task the agencies with proposing rules to Congress. Congress would write the bills necessary to convert the proposed rules into actual laws.
Yes
So those rules will need to be laws? Congress would work more hours GOOD
Craig Green knows its unconstitutional. He not there to argue the truth, he is there to argue for the Administrative State, which he clearly has a bias towards.
Congress is in charge via the definition of the rules via the passage of laws. Removing Chevron deference will put the onus on Congress to write laws with actual fidelity instead of leaving things more vague and leaving it up to the agencies in the executive to 'define' the actual rules. That isn't the role of the executive branch and the executive need to be pushed out of that business.
Then we would be relying on reps, who are in all likelihood amatures in the fields they are legislating about, to exercise their own exectutive functions to pass a law on how to run an an entire operation. They'd have to do it in one shot because changing it would take a lot of effort.
But it would make it easier for congress to defund whole gov organizations every time there was a majority shift of congressional power! Oh wow, that would be chaotic as hell. Corps could buy the ear of reps and senators to tell them how to create and run state orgs or make them disappear. We're going to be back to outright feudalism in no time. Just you wait😂
@@thefinestsake1660 imagine Congress actually having to do its job instead of doing dog and pony shows for politics. They then will be held to account by the electorate for doing or not doing what they want.
Hahahaha😂 as if
@@thefinestsake1660 Considering that that is the job that they have been elected to do, how is that a problem? If the laws have areas that are vague/underdefined, it is the responsibility of Congress to address those areas and not the executive through creative rule making (which is what Chevron Deference gives them the authority to do via exercise of their expertise).
Also, lets not act like these agencies aren't subject to the whims of the current Executive politicians and their lobbyists. Just look at agencies related to "Major Issues" (e.g. EPA, ATF, etc.) to see the impact of ideological changes in the leadership of the Executive and the chaos that it brings.
But the other side not well considered here is the overreach, inaccurate analyses, politically motivated directives, and rules that do not produce the intended results that need to be balanced and reined in that does not happen when absolute deference is given to the unelected agency personnel. That's what this case is about.
@prependedprepended6606Like that's not happening already? Hello!
It's about time the federal government has been over stepping its authority for years.
Almost like these agencies shouldn't have the authority to begin with.. ATF? Holy crap if incompetence was an organization that would be it
This shouldn't have to go to the supreme court! What are the citizens saying? Get rid of them! The government policing itself!
That's cute, our government has just governed itself again. Now time for the government to decide if they print more money to fund themselves or not? Real nail biter every time govt shutdown looms.Every single politician should be given academy award for putting on this show over and over and getting the suspense so high right before the M Night Shyamalan twist in the end always gets me!😎🍿
It's undemocratic to allow our elected officials write the rules we voted them in for?
It is undemocratic for 'elected' representatives to pass off their responsibility to un-elected bureaucrats...watch any congressional hearings in the last 30+ years...? either side in power, doesn't matter, congressional oversight hits a stonewall, with the bureaucracy protecting itsself...
This has been needed for years
About damn time. Enough with government overreach. Don’t need a government nanny. CUT MY TAXES !
Get off my roads, stop drinking my water, stop using medicine or technology invented at public institutions, then we can talk
True, some of these agencies were created from tragedies like 9/11 @@soren1803
BTW it's in the Constitution. His solution is more regs from bloated unelected buercerats.
Absurdity at its ugliest
Hopefully this will be a start on the US getting back to being a free country instead of a banana republic like we are now.
No agency acts without court approval these agency can trample human rights
Let me get this straight. The media believes that our constitutional rights being upheld is a bad thing. Gotcha.
Apparently the Commentator FORGOT that Judicial Imposed Constitutional Law swings both ways...Surprising though because he kept referring to the Chevron case from 40 years ago believing it was settled...YOU wrong.
Where did he mentioned it was settled?
Can't find it, but thanks will see the constitution law swings going further
Well, we know where Craig gets his bread buttered, now don't we! 😄
States and local government should make the laws for their areas and not federal agencies!!
Like what? Food safety? Buildings? Go chug some raw milk Mark.
@@meteorhero526 do you think the Feds should arrest anyone who wants to drink raw milk?
@@markhasenour12 Feds should to go after companies that cut corners to maximize profits at the expense of ordinary people.
@@markhasenour12 I believe the Fed should prosecute corporations who are polluting the Environment and producing products that are hazardous to people's health! We can't expect corporations and private enterprise to regulate themselves!
And what wrong if a state says thats ok?
What else would you expect in leaders to say? We can't limit them? How can we control the little people and still give us elitest? Everything we want that is silly. Any gotta be right cause he's a professor right in a college. And everybody knows he's smarter than the rest of us certain he does.
So, what evidence is Craig Green Esq. relying on to make the claim that "democracy" wants his little "agencies" to run everything in a totally "undemocratic" way?
Just remember, when they say 'democracy' they mean Democrat (party). When they say "our democracy" they mean the entire government that they think they own. To them, it's theirs, not yours. Once you understand this doublespeak and go back and listen to all of this again, you will understand EXACTLY what he's saying, and just how tyrannical they are. They wish to have NO limits on their power... over you.
The fact that Congress can’t even do basic things as it is.
@@broonkhavar1461😂😂😂 what a clown.
these talking heads act like its bad to restrict federal agencies when theyre operating in the gray areas of the law
Federal agencies are operating outside the law.
Good absolute power is bad. They need to be held accountable what what they’ve done. Corruption must be punished.🇺🇸
So who then exactly is going to make sure our air and water is clean, our food and drugs are safe, and our airlines are responsible? Put this in the hands of politicians and we are in serious trouble.
You think the FDA, EPA have YOUR interests at heart......Or their donors!
Put it in the hands of irrationally dedicated zealots that are not elected in opaque agencies and we are also in trouble.
Those agencies were created as a result of people suing private corporations for being irresponsible.
They can still do that. They just can't make up rules that put people in jail when congress didn't make what those people did illegal. Long story short they just can't do anything they feel like without an act of congress.
It might be a good thing- putting power in the hands of the people's representatives... unless they only represented the interests of 5% of the population and the corporations those people manage/own.
Uh oh
So you think un-elected, un-accountable federal bureaucrats who answer to NO ONE, (so 0% of the population) is a better solution???
Did you think before posting this, or are you a supporter of the Big Government fascism Craig Green is espousing?
To blithely assume that federal agencies actually have the expertise to fairly and equitably clarify the law is the hieght of insanity. The name of the game in Washington is POWER. There's not an agency anywhere in the government that deserves more power. If a law is sufficiently vague and unclear that an agency feels the need to increase its power, then Congress needs to revisit the law itself, clarify and codify it so that there as little "wiggle room" as possible. Chevron Deference was a bad ruling when enacted, it's bad now, and it will continue to be bad for the country.
University professor entitlement.
These ignorant professors never have any real world experience, but they do know how to tell us what they were taught about the real world, and how they think it should work.
Problem is these agencies have repeatedly overstepped their bounds
Federal agencies should be able to unilaterally make laws without congressional approval or involvement. International bodies like the WHO should be able to dictate laws in all countries too. It just makes sense because democracy. Mask up, vaxx up and stay home. Kamala / Omar 2024 and forever!
I'm hoping that was sarcasm...
Good, the ATF overplayed their hand and should get slapped. The second amendment limits government overreach on the people not limiting the people via government fiat. ATF has no law making capabilities.
Could ruling a certain way in this case result in the feds having to cover all of our costs in complying with the Internal Revenue Code?
I mean perhaps. The IRS is already working on its own free file software to undercut the companies. Whether goes anywhere it could be remained to seen as in the past corporate lobbyists would get congress to put a stop to it.
It warms my heart to read all the comments against chevron deference despite the obvious attempts by the guest to sway your opinions. Bravo Americans 👏
Chevron Deference should be abolished period.
If congress can not keep up with the tasks at hand, then perhaps we have put too much on the hands of the federal govt and also have been electing the wrong people.
100% agree...which is why they want these agencies full of UN-ELECTED, UN-ACCOUNTABLE individuals who will continue to have the power to abuse us!
Very suspicious indeed!!!
Thank our founding fathers for giving us a republic with a constitution and bill of rights to prevent democracy from running over the American people like a freight train 🚂.
Agencies must be reigned in; those that disagree are enemies of the people.
Shouldn't polluters and corporations Otha are producing and dumping hazardous materials one reigned? You're delusional if you expect them to self regulate!
Putting Congress in charge means leaving no one in charge? Maybe Congress should cut back on the types of things it's trying to do in the first place. Besides, what happened to making a committee to look into individual issues in the first place?
We don't need more government we need less
“It’s not true, but it may be less true.” Means that it’s actually true to some extent. When agencies can make and change regulations that can expose citizens to criminal penalties, those agency proclamations are an unconstitutional usurpation of the power of the legislature and the judiciary by the executive branch.
Cry harder, "Professor."
Thats his opinion and he's not a Supreme court judge and i dont care what he thinks.