ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

National

Supreme Court Won’t Weigh Curbing U.S. Agency Powers

[bloomberglaw.com – 11/25/19]

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Nov. 25 to once again consider whether Congress is disregarding a long-held legal doctrine and giving too much power to federal agencies.

Last term a short-handed Supreme Court refused to reinvigorate the “non-delegation doctrine,” which prohibits lawmakers from effectively passing off their legislative authority to another branch of government. The doctrine was used to upend New Deal legislation in the 1930s, but has been dormant since.

Conservatives and libertarians eager to dismantle the so-called administrative state are eager for the court to find that Congress has violated separation of powers and to curb executive authority.

But the justices refused to take up Ronald Paul’s and Arnold Caldwell’s appeals, who each claim that Congress violated the doctrine when it delegated to the attorney general the decision of whether sex offender registry laws should apply retroactively to those who were convicted of sex crimes before the reporting requirements were enacted.

Read more

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

IMO,
Once a man enters a plea & waiver, he or she waived right to the non delegation clause and its protections. While I’ve not yet read either ruling nor case either description…. I do not need to.

The nondelegation doctrine has to do with enforcing the Constitutional separation of powers. Has nothing at all to do with someone being on trial and waving their rights. It’s about the degree to which Congress can delegate lawmaking authority to the other branches of government.

The two cases discussed in that article, along with Gundy, are dead. They won’t be heard. Which means that last term’s Gundy decision stands. The AG can write and modify SORA statutes as it wishes, and apply them retroactively to people whose crimes predated the effective date of the ACT, without violating the constitution.

Congress may not delegate authority upon an Attorney General to “act” as if he were from within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Ex: imposing Sentence structure. While AGs have already the authority to ” promulgate ” the new law by estab.clauses, any law or ” role” specifically NOT placed upon OR within the judicial branch determination by a doctrine or via constitutional clause is OFF LIMITS. AGs can not act as judges act ( set & sign off on incarceration term) alone as per stare decis. Sentencing statutes requirements outright include demand all three parties input PRIOR TO decis.… Read more »

I’ve told you before that I have great difficulty reading your writing. I typically just scan it and don’t try to make complete sense of it. So I did that for this and did I pull out a gem?: I got a letter from Rock County DA today telling me if I comply he will dismiss my charge FTR, That seems like great news. So if you do what they ask, they will drop criminal charges? Seems like it would be good to do that. Then you can attack it later. No offense, but it did immediately cross my mind… Read more »

Will A,
I got no such offer to dismiss from the same DAs when represented by Wisconsin public defender in 2007, or 2011. I filed the motion to get me to AGDoyle who became Govenor. I fully intend to put him on the stand in my own defense.The reason our founders gave the people under indictment such incredible power to call witnesses. They did so for accountability purposes when endemic corruption became an issue- they understood from history the tendency for Democratic forms of gov to collapse because of it. Popularity rarely equates to sustainability nor equity in rights.

Does anyone else see this as the beginning of the end? To hell in a hand basket.

I guess it’s better that they refused to hear than ruled against.

I cannot remember offhand but what is the case SCOTUS decided to rehear this term after hearing it last term? Anyone remember? Is it related to this topic?

@ TS:. The article mentions this:
“The justices separately turned away a long-pending request to reconsider last term’s case, Gundy v. United States.”
So maybe it was “Gundy” that you were thinking of?

Yes, it was. Thank you, David.

Mike German, Author:
Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the new FBI damages Democracy.

Since when do authorities dissolve their own power. Never because Administrative conservators by definition are compelled to expand agency jurisdictional boundary and tax dollar appropriations.

In America🇺🇸, another Shame-Day on the Registry.
Meanwhile, in Germany🇧🇪: https://www.newsweek.com/germanys-highest-court-rules-convicted-murderer-has-right-forgotten-online-1474561

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a “statement” that signaled his support for “revisiting” the “non-delegation doctrine”. But a “revisit” might mean undoing a large part of the U.S. Government: the power that has been delegated to “Administrative Agencies”. This video below was made by an attorney that posts on YouTube daily. He made this video to discus the Gundy vs United States and Ronald W Paul vs United States. He feels that Justice Kavanough is signalling that he wants to hear a better case with the delegation issues. So perhaps this issue is far from dead. Justice Kavanaugh Wants… Read more »

The Supreme Court of the US has basically said the separation of powers is not upheld. That’s mind bungling. Authoritarian at it’s best. In other words, the ones who brought this case to light aren’t worthy of a Supreme Court of the US case.

😠 Yes, RM, because the ex post facto punishment of Registrants is not a clear enough argument AGAINST the unconstitutional delegation of authority?? I agree with you – it’s mind-blowing. How could anything be more clearly inappropriate than having the authority who is going to do the charging decide how laws will be created and applied?! What case could possibly offer a more clear cut argument??? 😠

🏦 Isn’t this the same “Non-Delegation Doctrine” that was the basis of Gundy v. United States?: 🏦

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/484375-justice-thomas-rues-missed-opportunity-to-curtail-government-power

Yes @David, it is. The infamous Chevron doctrine we’ve discussed here before.

17
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.