The mindset of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts is that a tyrannical government is one that doesn't do what they want it to.
You can go ahead and believe that. Alternatively, you could also believe that the court ruled that way for like 150 years before they started making up constitutional rights to decide every point of serious disagreement in American politics on specifically the side of Democrats for the last few decades straight.
And nor did it contain proscription against what they did. They acted within the explicit limits.
That's not inevitable at all. In fact, that's partly why the 'trade part of cap-and-trade is there.
Which brings us back to you suggesting that all things not explicitly forbidden are allowed, which is not how the US government is structured. The executive branch executes the laws passed by the legislature, not does whatever it wants until they're told to stop.
This would be relevant if it applied in a meaningful way to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS are quite literally there to interpret existing law, precedent, or constitutional stipulation.
Yes it does. Here' the plan, they're trying to break this Chevron deference (doctrine) - Ballotpedia
Wat? Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court has no reasonable basis to tell the EPA not to do something because that's the job of the Supreme Court, to tell them when they can't do things?
I don't think they're trying to break that. I think that is inherently broken to begin with, and they're trying to throw it in the trash where it belongs. The court's job is to interpret law, the idea that the courts should abdicate responsibility for that any time the legislation is vague is insane.
And where does statute define how much power the EPA should or should not have? It doesn't: SCOTUS pulls that sort of thing out of its backside. What SCOTUS is really doing here is deciding how much power the executive should have - but this is ideology more than law, because there is no clear definition in law.
And the thing to remember is that at the time the Constitution was drafted there were several Founding Fathers that wanted to do things like put in an amendment forbidding slavery, but they didn't because it would have been devastating to the new nation. There are both moral and practical reasons the Constitution is the way it is.
I feel like you're skipping over how they determined that the legislature hadn't authorized the EPA to do this particular scheme: cap and trade regulations have been explicitly voted down in the legislature. They didn't just say "we don't personally think the EPA should have this power", it was "from context of the voting record, congress clearly has not given this authority."
No, and I'd really appreciate it if you followed the course of the argument.
I want to be clear, if there was something wrong with the EPA, you could use the court system to stop that SPECIFIC regulation. That's not what happened. What happened was what you detailed in your first paragraph here. It's not about SPECIFIC regulations, its about how all regulations are made and updated
You do understand that the EPA is in the executive branch, right? It is not their power to decide the direction of policy, their job is to act out the laws as written by Congress. In this case, they were choosing to interpret old legislation to now include something that has been repeatedly and explicitly voted against by the legislature, and SCOTUS, doing their job, said they can't that. They can't interpret a general guidance from 60 years ago to mean that they have to execute a policy that the legislature currently refuses to pass.
The role of a federal agency such as the EPA is not merely to carry out laws "as written by Congress"; that would render it merely an enforcer, not an agency at all. The EPA was explicitly granted decision-making power over how to regulate the sector.
Easily. Elected bodies granted the EPA a power, in order to pursue an agreed policy direction: the partial decarbonisation of energy. An unelected body then decided to remove that power from the EPA.
I mean, if you want to just be wrong, I guess you can. There's not an argument here to make against you, other than to say that what you are saying is wrong. The entire executive branch is the enforcer of the laws made by Congress. That's the system. That's the separation of powers, that no single entity gets to both decide the law and enforce it.
So you believe executive orders to be illegal, do you?
