Quibble all you like, it has been that way for living memory, and reversing this is going to cause an enormous amount of chaos, because the modern state is built on these assumptions.
This is not some minor change, you're going to throw the federal government into chaos. I know that's the goal for a lot of people, but they should have the courage to admit that.
Discussions about the EPA seem to have to magical ability to make people forget that gems like the DEA and DHS exist. Heck, until recently the FCC was headed by a corporate shill.
Avoiding chaos is not a valid reason for allowing a legal injustice to persist even one day longer. I support legal mandates to reduce emissions, but it needs to be done the right way as an Act of Congress, not by unelected bureaucrats creatively reinterpreting a law to suit their political goals.
Please don't cross into flamewar like this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Even in a divisive thread like this one, your comment here stands out as breaking the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules when posting here? We'd be grateful.
That limiting the administrative state is far from a monumental changing of the rules. Nobody is challenging the administrative state per se. The major doctrines principle is just being expanded, which limits Chevron, something that only came into being a few decades ago.
That's an OK summary of FedSoc talking points, but you're missing some of the barbs. Might want to try again.
The effective reuslt of the non-delegation doctrine is that, when Republicans do not like a policy outcome, Congress is required to employ a time machine to give explicit instructions to an agency decades ahead of time.
The dissent indicates the power is already explicitly granted in the EPA statute plain as day. It really isn't clear to me what language would satisfy the majority.
Why do you propose every single atom needs to be explicitly listed? 42 USC 7411 does grant EPA the power to determine what emissions need regulating, and how to best regulate them.
"The EPA may regulate emissions that contribute to global climate change" would also do the trick.
These laws are all quite old, many pre-date the EPA even and are from the 1950s and 1960s. They were clearly written for toxic pollutants, which carbon is not.
Let me ask you plainly: are you a lawyer? You seem well informed, but not lawyerly. I feel like you have good theoretical knowledge of how this should work in an ideal world, but not as much understanding of how it works in practice.
reply