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

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.

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

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?

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 to Undo the Government – Could this be a Good Thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvkc1CYFUG4

😠 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