‘If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,’ Thomas wrote.

The problem is out of control. No one knows how many separate crimes there are, including the Department of Justice. Researchers have tried counting, with one 2019 effort identifying at least 5,199 statutory crimes. Regulatory crimes are orders of magnitude greater, with estimates of the number of regulatory crimes ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 separate offenses.

This is inconsistent with basic ideas of self-government and the intentions of those who framed the Constitution. Laws with criminal consequences should be carefully considered by the legislative branch, not pushed through by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people. //

Congress can seize the opportunity and pass some simple and commonsense reforms that would further reduce the power of the administrative state and its appetite for passing criminal laws.

Congress should begin by requiring the executive agencies to simply catalog their regulations that have criminal consequences. After all, if a federal agency does not know if something is a criminal offense, how can the people be expected to? If a “mens rea” requirement is not already in the law, Congress should make all criminal regulations have a “willful” requirement to prevent citizens from being prosecuted for actions they did not even know they took. For new laws, agencies should be required to state the applicable mental state.

In the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Chevron "defies the command of" the Administrative Procedure Act (the law governing federal administrative agencies) "that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA."

Roberts noted: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption" (that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies) "is misguided, because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Roberts added that this decision does "not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful--including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself--are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology." //

Jman98 Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Congress always had the power, they simply refused to use it. Congress could have always been specific in the language used in any given piece of legislation they wrote and passed. They purposely weren’t because specificity leads to responsibility and they’re not about that. By leaving things to someone else, bureaucrats in the Executive branch, they could then complain about how their purposely ambiguous legislation was badly implemented and dodge responsibility for what they’d done. How many times have they written in legislation “the Secretary shall” so as to punt all responsibility for what happens next? Hundreds, sometimes in the same piece of legislation. This is telling Congress to do their job right the first time. //

Minister of War Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
I agree that the power should be returned to the people & their elected representatives. But Iam hesitant when I hear that the Court thinks that courts know better than anyone else. The SCOTUS may have just granted itself & the rest of the judiciary more power that they shouldn't have to do what amounts to writing laws.

Laocoön of Troy Minister of War
an hour ago
No...they've just thrown down the gauntlet and have warned the Executive to not play so fast and loose with regulation or the courts will take away even more power from them. This entire decision is an unmitigated, magnificent result.

I suspect that the lazy and cowardly Congress will end up forced by their donors and political supporters to stop at least some regulation overreach.

Bottom line: Congress can amend §666 to make it clear that acts like what Snyder did are illegal. What will come of this is bad faith actors pointing at the court and claiming that Snyder is another example of the high court defending corruption. Rather, it is SCOTUS defending liberty and requiring Congress to define criminal statutes with clarity and specificity.

As Alito has famously said in the past, Congress did not create the Supreme Court, the Constitution did. It is not any Democrat hack's job to "fix" the court, and certainly, no one in Congress has the credibility to do absolutely anything regarding it.

"Fixing" it isn't the real purpose of the current left-wing hysteria, though. The real purpose is to garner more power.

Indeed, some seemed to think that Ukraine was the 51st state, with Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) even declaring that while “Some say, well, we have to deal with our border first. The Ukrainian Russian border is OUR border!" That's how off the rails these folks are now. //

If Connolly wasn't enough, you also had Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) with an unreal move. I'm not sure how he has the number of Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines, but here he is, allegedly calling them, telling them they were going to get the money. //

Where's his call to our Border Patrol agents, saying they are going to provide real security for the border? Whoops, sorry, money for Ukraine is their priority. Where is their excitement and desire to defend America? Can we talk about how disgusting these folks are? They celebrate taking your money, waving it in your face. //

Caitlyn Kim
Apr 20
@caitlynkim
·
Lauren Boebert yelled at Democrats who are waving Ukrainian flags during vote on Ukraine aid.

Caitlyn Kim @caitlynkim
·
Chair says its a violation to wave flags on the floor. Still some being waved.
1:51 PM · Apr 20, 2024

Edward Snowden @Snowden
·
This is a textbook case of Congressional capture. With a single briefing, the intelligence agencies routinely transform their most strident critics into the tamest of cheerleaders. //

Scott Adams:

If I correctly understand our system of government, when a president or leader in the Congress gets into office, someone in the CIA pulls them aside for “the talk” and completely changes their priorities.

The public is then told the leaders now have secret knowledge the public can never know.

But the leader has no way of knowing the “secret” information is true and in context.

That puts the secret-keepers in firm control of the government’s big decisions. If the secret-keepers agree with a government policy, they stay out of it. If they disagree with a policy, they say the UFOs will attack — or some other unverifiable thing — and by the way, we have recordings of every phone call you ever made, and scare the leaders into compliance.

Right in front of us. None of this is secret. //

Justin Truedope
2 days ago edited

I will splinter the CIA into ab thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. -- JFK

JFK had sworn to get rid of the CIA and the Deep State but unfortunately, they got rid of him first. Remember that Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that President Donald Trump was “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community over its fake Russia narrative. He's probably repeated that same sentiment to Mike Johnson, who rightly interpreted it as a credible threat.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer had told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. What Chucky really meant was that he knows that the Deep State controls everything, including the Fake News narrative, but unlike President Trump, he's far too cowardly to ever try to do anything about it. #Trump2024 #VOTE

John Kennedy
@SenJohnKennedy
·
Follow
Adeel Mangi is not qualified to be a federal judge because he supports organizations that celebrate people who kill law enforcement officers, hate Americans, and hate Jews.

It’s not Islamophobic to recognize that. It’s our job.

5:29 PM · Mar 22, 2024

etba_ss
18 minutes ago edited
Does everyone realize what just happened here? RFK, Jr, of Democrat family royalty, just endorsed one of the staunchest conservatives in the Senate for Majority Leader, assuming the GOP can take the Senate.

That's pretty remarkable. Paul isn't just anti-war. He's pretty much a rock ribbed conservative down the line. He's got some libertarian leanings, but he's solid.

There are several lessons that the federal government can learn from the experience with fiscal rules in the states. First, a strong federalist system is required to restore fiscal sanity. This requires devolution of federal programs to state and local governments. The experience with welfare reform reveals that state and local governments can deliver these services more efficiently than the federal government.

Devolution must be accompanied by greater fiscal autonomy, shifting tax and expenditure powers from the federal government to state and local governments. Fiscal autonomy for state and local governments would restore the strong federalist system envisioned in the Constitution. //

Recent research discovered that more than the required number of states called for such a convention of states in 1979, yet Congress failed to act. Legislation introduced in Congress this year (H.C.R. 24) would require Congress to fulfill its obligation under Article V of the Constitution to certify and count state resolutions and call the convention.

Non-profit organizations are now working with state legislators in an appeal to the Supreme Court for a Declaratory Judgement that would require Congress to record and count the applications. State legislators and citizens must now step up and demand that Congress set the time and place for such a convention as required under Article V. That may be our only recourse to restore dynamically growing credence capital and fiscal sanity.

The time for action is now.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
Most people in America don’t know that the census is based on a simple headcount of people (including illegals) not just citizens.

This shifts political power and money to states and Congressional districts with the highest number of illegals.
11:12 AM · Feb 3, 2024

Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie
·
Replying to @elonmusk
True. And when they find out, most Americans disagree with the current practice of counting illegals in the census and awarding congressional representation and electoral votes based on illegals.

Thats why I have cosponsored @WarrenDavidson ‘s resolution to stop this practice.

Warren Davidson 🇺🇸 @WarrenDavidson
Encourage your member of Congress to cosponsor HJ Resolution 37.

Congressional districts should be drawn based on the population of US citizens only. The Census should specifically count US citizens for apportionment of representation. Only US citizens are represented by the US…
1:11 PM · Feb 3, 2024

Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee
·
Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm™️ plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

Rather," it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell ('The Firm'), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which 'The Firm':

(1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

(2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

(3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

(4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

Whenever The Firm engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

So why does The Firm do it?

The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm with various privileges that The Firm is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

It’s through this process that The Firm passes most major spending legislation

It’s through this process that The Firm likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm has been willing to share.

But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

If we want Washington to work for us, the American people, we must start by restoring power back into the hands of those we elect and away from unelected bureaucrats. A critical aspect of this transformation hinges on addressing a doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Far more than a mere technicality, this legal principle has significantly shifted the dynamics of our nation's lawmaking, blurring lines of accountability and diminishing the legislative role of Congress.

For over 40 years, Congress has been derelict in its duties, hiding behind Chevron Deference, established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), to delegate its power to federal agencies. This abdication of responsibility has led to vaguely worded legislation, paralyzing gridlock, and sprawling omnibus bills. One stark example of this issue is the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Under the influence of Chevron Deference, its interpretation has been subject to dramatic shifts with each changing administration, illustrating the instability and confusion bred by this doctrine. //

The doctrine of Chevron Deference is a fundamental deviation from the constitutional design of our government. The legislative branch, intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the sole creator of laws, has enabled unelected bureaucrats to interpret and effectively create laws, eroding this principle. This isn't about the intelligence or capability of bureaucrats, but about the principle of democratic representation and accountability.

To ensure that laws reflect the will of the people and maintain the balance of power essential to our constitutional republic, we must end Chevron Deference. This change is vital for restoring legislative power to elected representatives. Additionally, adopting single-issue legislation would compel Congress to draft laws that are precise, transparent, and accountable, reflecting the true intent of our Founding Fathers. Single-issue bills, as advocated by James Madison in The Federalist No. 62, would ensure that each law is thoroughly debated and understood before being passed. This approach would eliminate the complexities often buried in omnibus packages, allowing for greater transparency, less government waste, and a greater public understanding of legislation. //

SLOTown Hoosier
3 days ago
This common-sense analysis is hindered by the fact that most Americans have little common-sense, but much sense of self and self-interest. All they care to know about Chevron is that they can fill up their cars.

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress, but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."― Earl Warren //

Random US Citizen
3 days ago
This will help, but the real issue is the SC decision in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp in 1937 in which the court decided that anything that had the slighted effect on "interstate commerce" could be regulated by congress. A vast swath of unconstitutional laws and regulations hinge on the idea that congress can regulate almost anything as long as there's even the most tenuous connection to commerce. Pick a federal law that's a bad idea and the chances are better than even that the reason it exists is because the black-robed tyrants decided that what they "felt" about an issue was more important than the rule of law or the plain text of the constitution.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

ColderWeather Random US Citizen
3 days ago
NLRB was expansionary for sure, but the one that really had the effect you state here is Wickard. As bad a decision as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
3 days ago edited
Departments can't make their own rules, that authority belongs to Congress. Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to delegate rulemaking authority to the administrative state. The Constitution requires Congress to make all laws, carry them into execution, and explicitly calls out any department of the US.

Art 1 Sec 8
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Any judicial nominee named by Joe Biden knows he/she is going to have to answer questions in a hearing for the job, and they know that they're going to have to face Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and his test of basic legal questions. Yet, Biden nominees invariably seem to have issues when it comes to those questions. //

Sen. Kennedy asked how many motions she had argued before the Court. Meriweather had to admit that she hadn't argued any. He then asked how many cases she had tried in the Court of Federal Claims. Again, she had to admit that the answer was zero. Generally, if you're naming someone to a court, you would hope they would have at least some experience in that court.

"Tell me the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims," he next inquired. //

Meriweather finally had to admit that she didn't know, "Senator, that is not an issue I have had occasion to consider before, despite my extensive civil experience and my familiarity not only with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but I've also reviewed the rules of the Court of Federal Claims." She said she would review the rules if presented with the question. //

Then he asked her what a "contract of adhesion" was, another basic question. He said you would see a lot of that because it's some of what the Court of Federal Claims deals with.

She was completely stumped. //

Kennedy has nailed multiple nominees before with his test. A prior Biden nominee recently withdrew her nomination in the face of failing the Kennedy test when she couldn't answer what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are,

The US military is almost entirely dependent upon China and Russia for a metal used in many military applications, such as explosives and armor-piercing bullets. The metal is antimony, and China currently owns 53 percent of the world's supply. However, it processes over 80 percent of antimony ore through contracts with other producers. The US's last source of antimony, the Stibnite mine in Idaho, ceased operations in 1997.

It isn't just the military that relies on antimony, though it does appear insane to import the key element in manufacturing modern military munitions from your most likely adversary; the private sector is also heavily reliant on the metal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/05/06/antimony-the-most-important-mineral-you-never-heard-of/?sh=24c6623f2b23 //

This issue has hit the front burner of Capitol Hill. The House Armed Services Committee is investigating the status of the Defense National Stockpile, which is charged with maintaining a strategic reserve of rare minerals. Our stockpile and the infrastructure to operate it will largely cease to exist by 2025 unless urgent action is taken.

Crap like this simply validates the idea that we are ruled by fools and buffoons. Congress has nearly sold off the stockpile of to, according to Defense News, " over the past several decades to fund other programs."

The stockpile was valued at nearly $42 billion in today’s dollars at its peak during the beginning of the Cold War in 1952. That value has plummeted to $888 million as of last year following decades of congressionally authorized sell-offs to private sector customers. Lawmakers anticipate the stockpile will become insolvent by FY25.

“A lot of what happened is Congress just getting greedy and finding politically convenient ways to fund programs that they weren’t willing to raise revenue for,” said [Massachusetts Democrat Seth] Moulton.

Sources told Fox that Thompson said he would be turning over four terabytes of data, then turned over only about two. But Loudermilk's Committee hired a forensics team to scrape the hard drives and found out that 117 files were deleted and encrypted. They were deleted on Jan. 1, 2023 – just days before the GOP was to take over and Thompson had to turn over the data.

But even though they tried to delete the information, it looks like they weren't smart enough to do it right. According to the report, the forensics team recovered all 117 deleted and encrypted files, and now Loudermilk is demanding to know what was going on here and how to get into the files. //

"You wrote that you sent specific transcribed interviews and depositions to the White House and Department of Homeland Security but did not archive them with the Clerk of the House," the letter says. Why are they sending the interviews/depositions to the White House but not recording them for the archives as they are supposed to? Sounds like they're trying to give the Biden White House a heads up, but not Congress and the American people.

Wednesday’s arguments were all about whether the Supreme Court should do away with the unworkable Chevron deference. //

Another common theme pushed, especially by Kagan, concerned the question of “who decides?” If there is an ambiguity, Kagan posed several times, do we want the agency or the courts to make the policy decision?

The correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should make policy decisions and draft statutes that provide clarity on the law. When Congress delegates authority to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear.

Chevron deference has allowed Congress for far too long to avoid making tough calls, and while some of the justices seemed fine with that approach, it is inconsistent with our constitutional structure. //

Businesses need certainty, the solicitor general argued, and overturning Chevron would destroy the predictability of the law.

On the contrary, the fishing businesses’ attorneys stressed, what creates uncertainty is Chevron deference, which allows for each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify its reversal, notwithstanding stare decisis — and several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed Chevron deference, in its current iteration, is unworkable. //

Right there could be the reason two undecided justices join to form a majority to overturn Chevron — it is just not workable because the lower courts won’t do the work required.

What happened to the 1995 ruling my client won in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña? //

A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies. Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adarand and compel the federal government to comply with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the “promissory note” set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

John Kennedy @SenJohnKennedy
·
Pres. Biden sent us a nominee who didn’t know the basics of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Bjelkengren is right to bow out, but Pres. Biden just keeps trying to put unqualified people on the bench—for life.

People who don't know the law have no business running our courtrooms.

3:23 PM · Jan 10, 2024

He had asked her basic questions about what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are, and she had no idea, saying they weren't "coming to mind." She couldn't even hazard a guess. How, as a federal judge, going before the Senate and Kennedy, do you not know the answer to that one?

SquidbillyCPO
16 hours ago
First of all that BS about the Supreme Court is just that BS and it would be unconstitutional to boot. Congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate the coequal judicial branch and the constitution is very clear Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments the only power they have is impeachment. Like gun control these tyrants in waiting just can’t seem to bring themselves to submit a constitutional amendment which is the right way to do it. And the same with legislative term limits, they are unconstitutional the Supreme Court ruled on that decades ago. //

etba_ss
19 hours ago
If you don't include Congressional staffers in term limits, stock trades and lobbying bans, you will make the problem worse, not better. Instead of having career Congressman and Senators, we will have career staffers who will have all the power and corruption of Congress now, only without the accountability of facing the voters and answering for their votes. //

anon-d4h1
20 hours ago
There's a huge trap here that I have never seen anybody mention in regards to term limits: staff.

Both committee staff and personal staff members.

I used to work on the Hill, and the power senior staff wields can be almost limitless.

They're in place before most members are elected, and they'll be there after those members are gone. Their expertise is almost always deferred to by the members. And as a result appropriations bills, procurement priorities, authorization language already reflect staff priorities and biases more than anything.

Imagine what the impact would be of reducing the time in office of elected members? The power of unelected staff members will grow even stronger.

Any move for term limits (which may in itself be a laudable goal), must include airtight limitations on staff tenure. //

Chris Paige
11 hours ago
None of these reforms will work. Term limits will become term minimums (as no decent candidate will challenge somebody who is leaving soon anyway & no one will fund such candidates as it's not worth it). Besides, it's done nothing in NYC (as you just get a rotating crew of losers).

The key is we need to make Congressional elections more competitive.

First, we need to abolish campaign donation limits. If someone's willing to give you $1MM to run for Congress, then God bless.

Second, we need to limit donations to NATURAL persons who are eligible to vote for the candidate at issue. This would increase intra-party disputes as. national donors couldn't enforce uniformity.

Third, we need to outlaw donations by government workers, government contractors, and employees of highly-regulated firms (ie. if you're company is FDIC insured or part of the Fed, you can't donate.).

Fourth, we need to redraw Congressional map lines to MAXIMIZE inter-party competition.

Fifth, we need to strip the media/social media of their outsized role - neither should be allowed to censor anything that isn't actually illegal.

Sixth, we need to limit secrecy - everything should become public after 20 years w/ exceedingly few exceptions.