There are a number of matters where state and federal courts have kept asking the legislative branches to make laws when laws are needed, and not to fob the duty off onto the executive branch agencies or the courts (immigration, ground-water [Texas]). In many instances, I personally don't feel that a law is particularly desirable, but at least it would force the legislative branch to accept their responsibility.
Speaking of legislative passing the buck, how about declaring war? "Since 1789, Congress has declared war 11 times, against 10 countries, during five separate conflicts: Great Britain (1812, War of 1812); Mexico (1846, War with Mexico); Spain (1898, Spanish-American War, also known as the War of 1898); Germany (1917, World War I); Austria-Hungary (1917, World War I); Japan (1941, World War II); Germany (1941, World War II); Italy (1941, World War II); Bulgaria (1942, World War II); Hungary (1942, World War II); and Rumania (1942, World War II)."
This is how we get government by executive order, more with each president.
Is it really that big a ruling? I can see congress taking the entirety of the regulations of the EPA and passing a bill codifying them all en masse. What's to stop them doing this? Doesn't all the case do is throw it back to Congress to codify the regulations? I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical.
It's huge, precisely because it will require Congress to do exactly that. The S.Ct. wasn't saying that we can't have a law outlawing CO2--in fact it explicitly said that may be the policy choice our country will make. But if the country makes that choice, it will have to be made through elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats.
Keeping things in the hands of elected officials rather than unelected bureaucrats is huge. The elected officials may make a hash of it, and often do, and certainly may in the case of antiscientific climate panic, but they're subject to the discipline of the voters. If the bureaucrats make a hash of it, the voters are helpless.
Yes, ok that's right. Also, I suppose it's even bigger in the future as now Congress has to pass each new regulation themselves. That's a definite win, even if the only change is it slows congress down to a crawl.
There are a number of matters where state and federal courts have kept asking the legislative branches to make laws when laws are needed, and not to fob the duty off onto the executive branch agencies or the courts (immigration, ground-water [Texas]). In many instances, I personally don't feel that a law is particularly desirable, but at least it would force the legislative branch to accept their responsibility.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
Speaking of legislative passing the buck, how about declaring war? "Since 1789, Congress has declared war 11 times, against 10 countries, during five separate conflicts: Great Britain (1812, War of 1812); Mexico (1846, War with Mexico); Spain (1898, Spanish-American War, also known as the War of 1898); Germany (1917, World War I); Austria-Hungary (1917, World War I); Japan (1941, World War II); Germany (1941, World War II); Italy (1941, World War II); Bulgaria (1942, World War II); Hungary (1942, World War II); and Rumania (1942, World War II)."
ReplyDeleteThis is how we get government by executive order, more with each president.
Is it really that big a ruling? I can see congress taking the entirety of the regulations of the EPA and passing a bill codifying them all en masse. What's to stop them doing this? Doesn't all the case do is throw it back to Congress to codify the regulations? I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical.
ReplyDeleteIt's huge, precisely because it will require Congress to do exactly that. The S.Ct. wasn't saying that we can't have a law outlawing CO2--in fact it explicitly said that may be the policy choice our country will make. But if the country makes that choice, it will have to be made through elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteKeeping things in the hands of elected officials rather than unelected bureaucrats is huge. The elected officials may make a hash of it, and often do, and certainly may in the case of antiscientific climate panic, but they're subject to the discipline of the voters. If the bureaucrats make a hash of it, the voters are helpless.
Tex has the right of it.
ReplyDeleteYes, ok that's right. Also, I suppose it's even bigger in the future as now Congress has to pass each new regulation themselves. That's a definite win, even if the only change is it slows congress down to a crawl.
ReplyDelete