A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

[NWRatCon]

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression​

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

FCC v. Consumers’ Research could turn SCOTUS into DOGE on steroids.

www.vox.com

The case is FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research

www.scotusblog.com

The doctrine, which a panel of the 5th Circuit is trying to revive, is "the nondelegation doctrine" which has been discredited and moribund since 1935. It was an effort by the infamous "four horsemen" to handcuff Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal". It was a power grab by the Supreme Court to override both the other branches of government.

What is interesting about this case, beyond the idiotic effort, is that it pits a power-hungry Supreme Court majority against a power-hungry Executive. The weakness of the 5th Circuit effort is actually the law in question. In the wake of the previous court's action, Congress gave explicit instructions to the FCC about how to assess and implement its law. It should be an easy call by the Supreme Court, but ideology may interfere. I expect they will issue a narrow ruling reversing the 5th Circuit, but with at least 3 Justices dissenting.

Watch this space.

 

[phoenix2020]

Paywalled.

 

[NWRatCon]

Paywalled.

Read the second article, you'll get all you need.

"While Congress has long called for universal service for telecommunications and similar technology, there are practical obstacles to this goal, especially in rural areas that are far more expensive to wire because residents are more spread out. In these areas, if telephone and internet providers charged a fair market rate, their services could be prohibitively expensive.

Which is why Congress created the Universal Service Fund. It effectively taxes telephone and internet service providers, and uses that money to pay for service to underserved communities. As a practical matter, service providers pass the cost of these taxes on to their customers in urban and other cheap-to-serve areas, so Americans living in cities wind up subsidizing telephone and internet in more sparsely populated regions of the country.

Because the amount of money the Fund must raise to achieve universal service will vary from year to year, Congress also tasked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with determining how much money the Fund should collect from service providers each year. The statute also provides the FCC with detailed instructions on how to determine the amount it should collect, and how that money should be spent."

 

[Safiel]

Nondelegation doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The nondelegation doctrine has always existed and continues to exist. The question is the extent to which the Supreme Court chooses to take it.

Obviously there MUST be a line beyond which Congress cannot cross in granting discretion to the executive branch in enforcement of the laws. The question is where that line falls.

 

[Safiel]

The Fifth Circuit likely will be reversed in this case.

 

[Napoleon]

Just so I understand the landscape - Congress created a Fund without allocating any money for it and told the FCC they have to fund the Fund in amounts to be determined by the FCC and by collecting money from carriers. And the FCC said, no, none of our 1,832 employees know how to math so we’ve hired a private company to do that for us.

Somebody needs to explain to me how putting the appropriation powers of Congress and the collection powers of the Executive in the hands of a private sector corporation is constitutional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression​

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

FCC v. Consumers’ Research could turn SCOTUS into DOGE on steroids.

www.vox.com

The case is FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research

www.scotusblog.com

The doctrine, which a panel of the 5th Circuit is trying to revive, is "the nondelegation doctrine" which has been discredited and moribund since 1935. It was an effort by the infamous "four horsemen" to handcuff Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal". It was a power grab by the Supreme Court to override both the other branches of government.

What is interesting about this case, beyond the idiotic effort, is that it pits a power-hungry Supreme Court majority against a power-hungry Executive. The weakness of the 5th Circuit effort is actually the law in question. In the wake of the previous court's action, Congress gave explicit instructions to the FCC about how to assess and implement its law. It should be an easy call by the Supreme Court, but ideology may interfere. I expect they will issue a narrow ruling reversing the 5th Circuit, but with at least 3 Justices dissenting.

Watch this space.

There is a basic misunderstanding of the doctrine of delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”). Remember, the State governments exist because they have been "delegated" certain powers (originating at the national level) by the federal constitution and the County/Municipal governments exist because they have been "delegated" certain powers (originating at the national level and "delegated" to the State governments) by the federal constitution.

What the doctrine ACTUALLY means is that the possessor of the power cannot abdicate their right to use it (i.e. a State could not "contract" with a private firm all criminal law making and enforcement powers).

Of course, since "making law" is an integral part of "administering law", when you have a group that is dedicated to ensuring that one person is the absolute authority over everything and that the wishes of that one person on any given day are carried out (regardless of what the wishes of that person were previously), I can quite understand the position being taken.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Read the second article, you'll get all you need.

"While Congress has long called for universal service for telecommunications and similar technology, there are practical obstacles to this goal, especially in rural areas that are far more expensive to wire because residents are more spread out. In these areas, if telephone and internet providers charged a fair market rate, their services could be prohibitively expensive.

Which is why Congress created the Universal Service Fund. It effectively taxes telephone and internet service providers, and uses that money to pay for service to underserved communities. As a practical matter, service providers pass the cost of these taxes on to their customers in urban and other cheap-to-serve areas, so Americans living in cities wind up subsidizing telephone and internet in more sparsely populated regions of the country.

Because the amount of money the Fund must raise to achieve universal service will vary from year to year, Congress also tasked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with determining how much money the Fund should collect from service providers each year. The statute also provides the FCC with detailed instructions on how to determine the amount it should collect, and how that money should be spent."

Isn't the problem that the FCC has in turn delegated that taxing authority to yet another entity? One that isn't even a government body?

 

[Ahlevah]

Remember, the State governments exist because they have been "delegated" certain powers (originating at the national level) by the federal constitution and the County/Municipal governments exist because they have been "delegated" certain powers (originating at the national level and "delegated" to the State governments) by the federal constitution.

No, man, the federal government has been delegated certain powers by the Constitution, which was created by the states through the people’s representatives in the various legislatures. Those governments would exist whether there was a federal government or not. Ultimate political authority in the United States rests with the people, not the government. The people are the sovereign here.

 

[aociswundumho]

The constitution states:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The political left hates this, because if observed, the gigantic totalitarian progressive regulatory state could not exist. The left wants laws to be made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, in order to cover every aspect of our lives.

 

[Volunteer]

The left wants laws to be made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, in order to cover every aspect of our lives.

Elon Musk isn't hardly a tool of the Left.

 

[NWRatCon]

Elon Musk isn't hardly a tool of the Left.

But he is a tool.

 

[Juks]

Thank ypu for sharing this. If the nondelegation doctrine is revived, it would mean that the Supreme Court could strike down any agency regulation, as long as five justices believe Congress was too "vague." This isn’t law, it’s a political veto disguised as legal reasoning. It shifts the role of the Court from interpreting how laws are applied to rewriting the very conditions under which laws are allowed to exist. It’s a transfer of power from elected officials to unelected judges.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression​

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

FCC v. Consumers’ Research could turn SCOTUS into DOGE on steroids.

www.vox.com

The case is FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research

www.scotusblog.com

The doctrine, which a panel of the 5th Circuit is trying to revive, is "the nondelegation doctrine" which has been discredited and moribund since 1935. It was an effort by the infamous "four horsemen" to handcuff Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal". It was a power grab by the Supreme Court to override both the other branches of government.

What is interesting about this case, beyond the idiotic effort, is that it pits a power-hungry Supreme Court majority against a power-hungry Executive. The weakness of the 5th Circuit effort is actually the law in question. In the wake of the previous court's action, Congress gave explicit instructions to the FCC about how to assess and implement its law. It should be an easy call by the Supreme Court, but ideology may interfere. I expect they will issue a narrow ruling reversing the 5th Circuit, but with at least 3 Justices dissenting.

Watch this space.

The SCOTUS needs to avoid this. The time will come when the cabal that has polluted the SCOTUS will be held accountable.

 

[Athanasius68]

Thank ypu for sharing this. If the nondelegation doctrine is revived, it would mean that the Supreme Court could strike down any agency regulation, as long as five justices believe Congress was too "vague." This isn’t law, it’s a political veto disguised as legal reasoning. It shifts the role of the Court from interpreting how laws are applied to rewriting the very conditions under which laws are allowed to exist. It’s a transfer of power from elected officials to unelected judges.

What would happen (hopefully) is that Congress would write legislation more carefully and more specifically.
That is how 'law' should be written-- that the reasonable person can understand.
After all, the legislative branch is the body who is democratically and politically accountable.

Just like with the Executive, the Judiciary can shoot down their efforts as well.

Moreover, presently with the Humphrey executor decision still in effect (though on life support) the agencies who are writing these regulations are NOT under control of any elected official.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

What would happen (hopefully) is that Congress would write legislation more carefully and more specifically.
That is how 'law' should be written-- that the reasonable person can understand.
After all, the legislative branch is the body who is democratically and politically accountable.

Just like with the Executive, the Judiciary can shoot down their efforts as well.

Moreover, presently with the Humphrey executor decision still in effect (though on life support) the agencies who are writing these regulations are NOT under control of any elected official.

The SCOTUS wouldn't interfere if abortion was made legal. They learned the cost of forcing their religious bullshit on the rest of us.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Isn't the problem that the FCC has in turn delegated that taxing authority to yet another entity? One that isn't even a government body?

Not as I read the law. The FFC determines the amount to be collected (through payments from the local utilities) and the local utilities add that amount to their bills because the local utilities have to pay the FCC.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, man, the federal government has been delegated certain powers by the Constitution, which was created by the states through the people’s representatives in the various legislatures. Those governments would exist whether there was a federal government or not. Ultimate political authority in the United States rests with the people, not the government. The people are the sovereign here.

It may surprise you to learn that "ultimate political authority" rests with the people of EVERY country.

Possibly you should look up the meaning of the word "ultimate".

 

[cpwill]

It still surprises me how the people most concerned about Trump abusing people and becoming a dictator are the same people most dedicated to preserving his ability to do so.

 

[Ahlevah]

It may surprise you to learn that "ultimate political authority" rests with the people of EVERY country.

Surprise me? No, man. I studied political philosophy. I read the Declaration of Independence. But there is also the harsh reality that tyrants don’t give a shit about honoring the political rights of the people. Sometimes in order for the people to assert their rights, they need a revolution. And in order to have a revolution, they need guns. In 1776, the Americans had citizen militias with guns. Good luck with “Power to the people!” in, say, North Korea.

Possibly you should look up the meaning of the word "ultimate".

No, I understand it perfectly. I also understand “North Koreans are ****ed.”

 

[Grand Mal]

The constitution states:



The political left hates this, because if observed, the gigantic totalitarian progressive regulatory state could not exist. The left wants laws to be made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, in order to cover every aspect of our lives.

This is exactly backwards.

 

[Luce]

No, man, the federal government has been delegated certain powers by the Constitution, which was created by the states through the people’s representatives in the various legislatures. Those governments would exist whether there was a federal government or not. Ultimate political authority in the United States rests with the people, not the government. The people are the sovereign here.

Has anyone explained that to Trump? Because the way he talks implies that nobody has explained that to Trump.

 

[Ahlevah]

Has anyone explained that to Trump? Because the way he talks implies that nobody has explained that to Trump.

At least Trump trusts me to own a gun. Many so called liberty-loving Democrats don’t. That makes them hypocrites.

 

[Luce]

At least Trump trusts me to own a gun.

Yeah, remember when Obama and Biden were kicking peoples' doors in and seizing their guns.

Too bad about the rest of our rights, tho.

Many so called liberty-loving Democrats don’t. That makes them hypocrites.

So go talk to them about it. I left the party when they forced Biden out.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Surprise me? No, man. I studied political philosophy. I read the Declaration of Independence. But there is also the harsh reality that tyrants don’t give a shit about honoring the political rights of the people. Sometimes in order for the people to assert their rights, they need a revolution. And in order to have a revolution, they need guns. In 1776, the Americans had citizen militias with guns. Good luck with “Power to the people!” in, say, North Korea.



No, I understand it perfectly. I also understand “North Koreans are ****ed.”

The populace gets the government it is prepared to put up with.