Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. Repealing Cheveron Defrence is actually based. Chevron Deference basically gave federal regulatory agencies almost unlimited power to make up new "rules" (basically unwritten laws) by stretching the interpretation of existing laws to their limit to criminalize things which aren't and shouldn't be illegal.
    10
  2. Repealing Cheveron Defrence is a very good thing for gun owners and a bad thing for the drones at the federal agencies because it limits the power of the latter. While Cheveron Deference was in effect, it was common practice for federal agencies to create "rules" by stretching definitions and creating new interpretations of written law to restrict things that were never meant to be illegal. Examples of this get absolutely wild like the ATF considering a shoe string to be a regulated machine gun part. It left everyone, even legal scholars in a state of limbo where nobody knew what was legal or not, and you could be criminally charged for doing something because a federal agent decided to "reinterprate" the law so that something which is perfectly legal now becomes a felony.
    8
  3. Frankly, they made the right ruling here. There is no constitutional right to abortion. If you want to force all 50 states to permit infanticide, change the constitution. Otherwise, leave it up to the states. Unless the court established that a baby is alive and has rights from day one of conception, it might be equally hard to ban abortion in all 50 states. There is no federal definition of murder, that stuff is left up to the states.
    6
  4. How is saying "no, federal agencies can't declare random things to be illegal at will regardless of the written law" anything other than restricting the power of government?
    6
  5. I'm really not a fan of Legal Eagle lately, he's gotten very political in the past few years, and frankly a lot of his opinions are just that, opinions, with no bearing on actual law. It's pretty clear that he is a supporter of big government, and he would support almost any law that gives more power to the government, or at least to his favored political party. Cheveron Deference prescedance led to a lot of abuse of regular law abiding citizens by federal agencies. As a German, I'm sure you don't care for guns, but a lot of Americans care about being able to defend themselves just as much as they care about free speech. Federal agencies like the ATF and FBI have been going wild with the massive authority granted to them by cheveron deference to screw over gun owners by suddenly declaring their legally acquired property as being criminal and forcing them to either destroy their firearms without compensation or else face severe criminal penalties worse than many violent criminals face. The people running these agencies are either extremely ignorant of the subject matter and the implications of their rule changes, or are downright malicious with how they abuse their authority, and I suspect it is more of the latter. We are better off without Cheveron Deference, the authorities simply can't be trusted with that kind of power, least of all the unelected ones.
    4
  6. He became really political a couple of years ago, his content has taken a nose dive. I've stopped watching him since that. Half of the stuff he talks about isn't even legally sound, but rather is just a certain interpretation of the law which is politically convenient to some, but is by no means consensus. Cheveron Deference for example was a terrible prescedant which put everyone in a legal limbo where legal conduct could suddenly be declared illegal by federal agencies changing their mind on how to interpret the law. It affected many people in many fields, but the part I'm most familiar with is the kind of hell it made life for gun owners. Basically, a gun I legally bought suddenly became a felony to own, at which point I am legally required to destroy the weapon or face prison time. Then a year later, it became legal again. This was all without any new laws being passed, it was all up to unelected burecrats changing their mind about what should be legal or illegal. For anyone who followed the law and destroyed their property worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, they were offered no form of compensation by the government, and they can't magically reform their destroyed firearm because the federal agency decided to undo a rule they made on a whim. Cheveron deference was terrible for anyone who doesn't have absolute faith in the government to always do the right thing.
    4
  7.  @socalnad  I don't agree with federal agencies regulating my rights away, and yes, I'm upset about it. I'm not wrong and Legal Eagle isn't right. For what it's worth, I'm probably a lot better informed than you are on these types of issues.
    4
  8. Both of those things you said are completely wrong things claimed by various "news" channels. The president is only immune to "official acts" like drone striking hospitals full of sick children, not to personal acts like taking out a loan in the wrong way. No, the courts do not have unlimited power to control the rule of law. All they can do is interpret the law, and in rare cases overturn it if that law is unconstitutional. Its also kind of crazy to say that unelected federal agencies should have this power but the courts shouldn't.
    4
  9.  @Visual217  I'm way ahead of you. At this point, I'm looking for a legal path to repeal the NFA and legalize machine guns.
    3
  10.  @sanjeedfaruque1139  You just exactly described what happened when federal agencies started declaring things illegal at will. The courts are supposed to interpret the law, that's their entire purpose. Giving enforcement agencies broad power to interpret the law is equivalent to letting the police decide what is illegal, and letting them arrest whomever they please as long as they can justify later why the defendant was maybe, sort of, probably breaking some kind of law if you interpret the law in a very specific way. It's obviously going to lead to extreme abuse of power.
    3
  11.  @halycon404  The Cheveron deference doctrine gave way too much power to the regulators. It's the equivalent of letting the police decide what they think the speed limit should be regardless of the posted limit, and arresting people for exceeding whatever they decide the new speed limit is. It violated the separation of powers, the rule makers and the rule enforcers are supposed to be separated, letting the enforcers make the rules promotes too much abuse of power.
    3
  12. Of loving democracy, of peacefully protesting, of wanting accountability and answers for a shady election. Those things are all fine as long as you're on the right side of history, which they aren't.
    3
  13. Legal Eagle is not giving legal advice here, he's giving his politically charged opinions on US law that are anything but politically neutral. Cheveron Deference was a mistake, it gave nearly unlimited power to federal agencies to do anything they wanted as long as they could come up with an excuse as to why they should be able to regulate something.
    3
  14. Are people really that uninformed? Gratuities aren't bribes. Gratuities are still illegal in many cases, the court simply stated that the defendant was charged with the wrong statute. It'd be like if you stole something from your neighbor's home and the court charged you with assault instead of burglary.
    3
  15. Why is the assumption that we need more laws? What about all the problems caused by too many laws?
    2
  16. Bob Murray, is that the guy who spilled his coffee on the control panel at Chernobyl, and knocked over the glass vials at Wuhan?
    2
  17. Conspiracies are only bad when it's American citizens committing them, it's fine when the government, corporations and media engage in them.
    1
  18. They are conservatives. They preserve things, interpret the law the way it was written. The courts are written to have power over interpretation of law, not federal agencies, so they struck down Chevron. The president is the executive, he is a dictator who has immunity to prosecution so that he can commit war crimes in our "national interest" like drone striking hospitals in countries we aren't at war with or ordering the assassination of American citizens. That's the way the law is written. Don't like it? Go ahead and vote, it won't change anything. No government will give up their power, only redistribute it.
    1
  19. What we have is much worse. Kings can be held accountable. Presidents, congressmen, unelected bureaucrats , they won't be. Voting is the illusion of control, in reality, no matter who you elect, the corporations and the deep state always win.
    1
  20.  @Visual217  Fun fact: it is relatively easy to build your own homemade sub gun, and there are instructions on how to do so online for free. If I say the name of the author, my post will magically disappear.
    1
  21.  @Visual217  GF and I printed our own Glock frame for fun. It wasn't great since it's not a high end printer, but it was still a cool project. They can regulate all they want, but they won't stop people from getting what they need to do what needs to be done, if it comes to that.
    1
  22. Welcome to the government.
    1
  23. The issue here isn't that Cheveron was in the right or that the government was wrong. The issue is that Cheveron Deference set a prescedant which gives government burecrats in various agencies nearly unlimited power to interpret the law to the point where it was never clear what was legal or illegal. It would be like if a local police department got to set the speed limit on a stretch of road, and kept constantly changing it without even changing the road signs, and handing out tickets to drivers who followed the speed limit on the road signs. I'm a gun owner, so I was very badly affected by this prescedant. I own what is called a "pistol brace". Basically, it's a crappy excuse for a stock that the government defined as being legal to have on certain types of firearms where a normal stock is illegal. I won't go into detail because gun laws are mind bendingly complicated, contradictory and nonsensical. The ATF, a bunch of burecrats with law enforcement power who I have no power to vote for or against, decided that this firearm I legally purchased is now a felony crime to possess one year after I bought it. I was then required by law to destroy this $1200 firearm or face a felony conviction. I was given no compensation for complying with the law and destroying my $1200 firearm. No new law was passed during any of this, the ATF just decided, without any involvement from congress, that they wanted to treat my legal firearm as a different class of weapon which is illegal to possess. Millions of law abiding gun owners across the country were forced to either desteoy their property or face felony convictions without any form of compensation because some mindless drone in an overfunded federal agency decided that owning a piece of plastic and rubber should be worth a felony conviction. This is the kind of power given to federal agencies by Cheveron Defrence.
    1
  24. It's been like this for longer than either of us have been alive. You're only noticing now because the one guy you really don't like has the same immunity to consequences as all our other duly elected tyrants. We'll never see charges be brought against Obama for the drone strikes and illegal assassinations, nor against Bush for lying about WMDs and starting a war that killed thousands of Americans. The only reason there was ever a chance we might have seen charges against Trump is because he didn't bow to the true masters of our nation, the corporations and the unelected bureaucrats whose names we will never know and whose term limits never expire.
    1
  25. What we have is worse than a monarchy. In a monarchy, there's only one head that needs to roll for things to change.
    1
  26.  @Almbriso  Frankly, it's not Trump I'm worried about. He's one man. It's the countless bureaucrats whose career depends on regulating away all of our rights. I'm also under no illusion that Trump or any other politician will be any kind of solution to this. Both parties are only interested in taking over the oligarchical regime, not reforming or dismantling it.
    1
  27. Buddy, every president for my entire lifetime is a war criminal multiple times over. Obama ordered drone strikes on hospitals, Bush lied about WMDs to start a war. Presidents having immunity for official actions taken in office is the norm, and it's been abused a thousand times over. The only reason Democrats and the media care about Trump having immunity now is because he doesn't run by their playbook.
    1
  28. Few politicians are. Remember that. The one you like might be next.
    1
  29. Abridged version: No, Trump is probably not going to be found guilty of incitement, but they can try to impeach him anyways.
    1
  30. Lesson learned: aim to kill
    1
  31. I agree, but you don't. If you did, you'd be calling for Obama and Bush to be tried for war crimes.
    1
  32. No it's not, and it hasn't been for some time. The real problems in America aren't caused by the people we elect, it's caused by the people we don't, whose names we will never know, who set policy without passing laws, who determine which countries are to be invaded in back room deals that will never see the light of day.
    1
  33. The government doesn't protect you from those things. The government protects the corporations from accountability. Cheveron Deference was a terrible ruling that gave federal agencies nearly unlimited power to declare things legal or illegal on a whim no matter what the law said. The ATF abused this authority to turn millions of gun owners into felons overnight unless they destroyed their lawfully acquired property without any form of compensation, all without any new bills being passed.
    1
  34. Legal Eagle gave a very biased take on Cheveron Deference that didn't cover the extensive problems caused by federal agencies abusing their power by declaring things illegal, making up new "rules" (unwritten laws that are still enforced) etc
    1
  35. I like a lot of things Trump has done, but this is just dissapointing. He didn't even pardon Snowden.
    1
  36. Okay, let's see some charges on Obama for bombing that hospital, for assassinating American citizens, and Bush for starting a war on false pretenses.
    1
  37. We've had one for centuries, we just change who it is every 4 to 8 years.
    1
  38. The president is immune to prosecution for his official duties unless impeached. That's why Bush and Obama were able to drone strike children's hospitals without getting in trouble, but Trump taking out a loan and paying it back is a crime because a Democrat judge decided so. He had no federal protection for that because that wasn't an official duty. The federal agencies absolutely should not have the power to declare random things illegal at a whim. These agencies exist to enforce the law, not create it. Cheveron Deference is how you get 40 million Americans being declared felons overnight because some mindless drone at the ATF decided that a piece of plastic should be worth 10 years in federal prison.
    1
  39. Legal Eagle is not an unbiased perspective on these matters. Cheveron Deference was a terrible ruling that gave huge amounts of power to unelected burecrats to declare things illegal on a whim.
    1
  40. Cheveron Deference was a disaster, good riddance. Legal Eagle isn't giving you an unbiased take, he's giving you the Democrat party line. I used to watch him, he got really partisan a few years ago. He's pointing out that without Cheveron Deference, the courts have a lot of power to interpret the law. That's literally how the law is supposed to work. Under Cheveron Deference, the federal agencies had way too much power to make up whatever rules they wish, and it was really bad for many regulated industries. They nearly put thousands of fishermen out of businesses due to a harebrained decision by some burecrat. You probably hate gun owners, but the ATF has been especially vile in their abuse of Cheveron Deference. They repeatedly made decisions without informing anyone that turned millions of Americans into felons and forced many Americans to destroy their lawfully acquired property to avoid felony convictions. For a period of about a year, I was actually an unconvinced felon because a piece of plastic I own was declared an illegal gun part. Thankfully, the courts shut down that BS before I was caught and sentenced to 10 years in prison for owning a piece of plastic.
    1
  41.  @willjapheth23789  The presidential immunity case, as well as the recent case about distinguishing between a "bribe" and a "gratuity" are both very frequently misunderstood, and frequently lied about by the media. I assume they're trying to smear the supreme court because their party doesn't control it. The presidential immunity case came to the conclusion that everyone would have agreed on in more sane times. The president has immunity to most crimes as long as he commits them in service of his official duty and isn't impeached. That means that if the president drone strikes a hospital full of sick children, you can't criminally charge him unless he's impeached first. If he shoots someone dead in the street, he doesn't have immunity because that was regular murder, not legally immune government murder. Murder is only okay when the government does it. That's how the law has always worked, and that's what the supreme court ruled. Without this immunity for official acts, every single president in my lifetime would be a war criminal several times over. The reason I made that assumption is because most gun owners, or at least the politically aware ones, are aware of how aggressively federal agencies like the ATF have been abusing Chevron Deference to basically make up new laws as if they were the legislature. The court is supposed to interpret laws, that's it's purpose. The enforcement agencies are supposed to enforce the laws as they are interpreted, not decide to come up with a bone headed interpretation of it that turns entire industries on their head or turns millions of people into felons without due process. Our system worked well once upon a time, but everything's been so heavily politicized that both sides see any agency that isn't owned by them as "rouge" and "dangerous". Everyone's in a mad grab for power, and it's not going to end well for the common citizen.
    1
  42.  @halycon404  I saw first hand the kind of lunacy that occurred when mindless drones in the unelected bureaucracy were allowed to decide what a law meant. Nothing was safe, they could restrict lawful conduct or mandate compliance to an obscene degree and seeking remission was a complex and expensive process that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers to get each and every infringement rectified by the court. If you want to ban something, pass a law. If you want to mandate conduct, pass a law. Letting the enforcers make up new laws at a whim was always a mistake.
    1
  43.  @SnakeSalmon8izback  Agreed. Cultish lefties have gone mad.
    1
  44. It already happened long ago, we just didn't realize it. Trump isn't the cause of it, he's the response to it. Now the state and it's puppet media accuse him of everything they are guilty of.
    1
  45. Nothing Trump did is out of ordinary for a president. You may take that to mean "he's not that bad". What I actually mean is that "every president is a war criminal, and Trump isn't very remarkable in that".
    1
  46.  @Lazzil  Literally nothing is stopping a bar certified lawyer from being a partisan hack. Actually, over the past few years, if you ask a practicing lawyer, the political divide in our country has reached the profession of law to the point where there are now "left" and "right" wing lawyers. If you are involved in a case with political undertones, or if you're a public figure involved in politics, most lawyers on the "other side" will refuse to take your case because doing so would ruin their career due to the resulting backlash. If you want a public example of this, look what happened to Donald Trump's lawyers. They were criminally charged in retaliation for their willingness to aid Trump in his legal cases with paper thin excuses of them breaking some kind of law. It's extremely unusual for lawyers to be charged with a crime for anything they do in order to protect their clients since that's literally their job and thus they have broad immunity, even to lie in court about their client's innocence. Any honest person would admit that it's obviously a partisan attack to arrest Trump's lawyers, but most Democrats won't admit this since it breaks the narrative to admit that their side is guilty of the same things they accuse the Republicans of.
    1
  47. It already is one, has been for some time. We just switch out the dictator every few years to convince the masses they have some say.
    1
  48. This is the way it's always been, you only realize it now because you don't like the guy in charge. They rule through threats and violence, there is no accountability for their actions.
    1
  49. The constitution doesn't matter. The government has immunity for every crime they commit because there is no one to hold them accountable. Legal Eagle doesn't care about any of that, nor do any of the other Democrats. They're all just angry that someone who isn't on their side gets the same special privileges that they do.
    1
  50. Agreed but for basically the exact opposite reasons that you and Legal Eagle think. Cheveron Deference gave an absurd amount of power to federal agencies, and I do mean absurd, as in comical. The ATF used the powers granted to it by Cheveron Deference to declare that a shoe string is a machine gun part, and that anyone who owns a gun part capable of turning a gun they own into a machine gun is a felon. By their definition, anyone who owned a rifle and a pair of shoes was guilty of a felony worth 10 years in federal prison. This is not a joke, you can look this up. This is what happens when you give the clowns in government unlimited authority to make shit up.
    1