1.These three:
a.Trump Supreme Court nominees that appear to re-establish originalism on the court.
b. The recent EPA decision
c. The October hearing of Moore vs Harper
The confluence of these three may require a recalculation by those of us whe are pessimists.
2. Originalist jurists give homage to the actual text, words, language of the Constitution. It i the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.
No other law, statute, regulation, constitution, takes precedence over the words of the Constitution.
This, of course, will be news to Democrats.
3. “On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its ruling on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPA’s authority under a provision of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
In a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court denied the EPA the authority to create emissions caps, stating that Congress must provide specific direction to the EPA—instead of a broad scope of power— for the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that the text of the Clean Air Act is written with broad language to anticipate dealing with new problems like climate change and that the majority’s decision contradicts nearly a century of regulatory law.”
What the SCOTUS ruling on EPA and emissions means for climate change
4. The EPA decision should be views against the long-standing policy of Congress creating agencies and allowing them to have the powers that the Constitution gives only to Congress.
Is there some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have, and have been allowed to make policy changes they are not authorized to do.
The 2020 election was rife with examples.
5. Progressives/Democrats/Liberals work day and night to find ways around the law of the land, the Constitution.
“Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.”
The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]
Here is the point not to be missed: the 2020 election mishandled in many states where powers to alter “time, place, and manner” of elections, contrary to the specific language of the Constitution.
What if it becomes a case before this originalist Court????
Oh…..and it is on the docket for October.
a.Trump Supreme Court nominees that appear to re-establish originalism on the court.
b. The recent EPA decision
c. The October hearing of Moore vs Harper
The confluence of these three may require a recalculation by those of us whe are pessimists.
2. Originalist jurists give homage to the actual text, words, language of the Constitution. It i the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.
No other law, statute, regulation, constitution, takes precedence over the words of the Constitution.
This, of course, will be news to Democrats.
3. “On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its ruling on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPA’s authority under a provision of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
In a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court denied the EPA the authority to create emissions caps, stating that Congress must provide specific direction to the EPA—instead of a broad scope of power— for the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that the text of the Clean Air Act is written with broad language to anticipate dealing with new problems like climate change and that the majority’s decision contradicts nearly a century of regulatory law.”
What the SCOTUS ruling on EPA and emissions means for climate change
4. The EPA decision should be views against the long-standing policy of Congress creating agencies and allowing them to have the powers that the Constitution gives only to Congress.
Is there some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have, and have been allowed to make policy changes they are not authorized to do.
The 2020 election was rife with examples.
5. Progressives/Democrats/Liberals work day and night to find ways around the law of the land, the Constitution.
“Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.”
The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]
Here is the point not to be missed: the 2020 election mishandled in many states where powers to alter “time, place, and manner” of elections, contrary to the specific language of the Constitution.
What if it becomes a case before this originalist Court????
Oh…..and it is on the docket for October.
Last edited:
