Posts Tagged seperation of powers

FPC Tells Supreme Court Chevron Deference Is Unconstitutional

From Ammoland:

“Chevron violates Article III by transferring from the judiciary to the executive the ultimate interpretative authority to say what the law is,” argues the brief. “It violates Article I by incentivizing Congress to abdicate its legislative duties and delegate legislative authority to the executive. As a result, Chevron accumulates legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a single branch of government—which the Founders considered the very definition of tyranny.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Mass. Refuses To Issue Gun Licenses

From NRA-ILA:

In a complete breakdown of the U.S. system of government, Massachusetts’s executive branch has defied orders issued by the state’s judicial branch and continued to deny the licenses that the courts have ordered them to issue. According to the Globe report, “Daniel Bennett, Baker’s public safety secretary, told local police chiefs… that the state intends to block certain licenses from being reinstated, even if ordered by a judge.” In what some might view as encouragement to commit contempt of court, the Globe reported that the Baker administration has told local law enforcement officials that if they are ordered by a judge to issue a firearms license to an individual the executive branch has deemed prohibited, the local official should submit the prospective gun owner’s paperwork to the state, where “officials would refuse to process it.” The administration is demanding that local officials disobey a direct court order.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Case Could Reign In Federal Bureaucracies

From Bearing Arms:

Recently, there has been a push from some quarters to reconsider Auer deference, Chevron deference, and other aspects of the modern administrative law state, and overturn them as being inherently unconstitutional; specifically, that such deference to bureaucratic decisions violates the required Separation of Powers. 

Were that to happen, the current administrative state would be rocked to its core. While there have been some rumblings from Justice Thomas and others in this regard, there did not appear to be a majority on the Supreme Court interested in potentially unleashing this kind of political earthquake. (Scalia and Kennedy were, at best, squishy on the issue.)

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments