Comments by "Clown Life" (@Clownlife432) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
151
-
61
-
55
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uis246 no, not always. This what people talk about usually when they say the deep state or bureaucratic state. It’s a lot of unelected people making rules, and they are not accountable. It tracks back to Supreme Court decisions, mainly chevron deference. But it’s terrible law because it basically tells the agencies you decide, but that then makes the rule makers unaccountable to the public. This is the same problem a lot of 2A people have with the ATF, as they routinely ‘interpret’ new things as being illegal, and just like that, you’re a criminal. That’s why chevron deference needs to be struck down. Laws are passed by lawmakers, and judges should enforce said laws, and the Supreme Court should determine if those laws are in alignment with the constitution. Any agency that does exist, and I don’t think many are needed, but any that does should be advisory only. But this causes an underlying natural friction. People want power, people want to be perceived as important. Companies want market share to look important. Government agencies want a large size and scope to look important. But coming back to your original question, often times these individual questions have to go up to the Supreme Court, similar to gun laws. Often times, politicians know those laws will be deemed unconstitutional. But they do it anyways to pander, and to attempt at grabbing power. Great example, student loan forgiveness, the president knew he had no power to do that. But he did get to pander for the midterm last year, and he will use it as political fodder because of the perception of the court because they’re primarily originalists this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1