Supreme Court: Chevron Deference

SoonerAviator said:
I'm not entirely sure why you think that's the case. The gov't we have is not what the founders designed 250 years ago, so maybe that's the problem. Cut the Federal gov't back down to the level it was designed to be and that'd be a good start. The US Constitution isn't that large of a document, so I'm not entirely sure how it impedes a "modern economy".
Click to expand...
I mean, Jefferson thought that a constitution shouldn't last for more than 20 years or so. So this one having been around for 250 doesn't seem to match his expectation. But otherwise, pretty sure you're ultra-narrow reading of the government and my being ok with the fact that such a reading is pretty modern isn't anything that's gonna get settled on an aviation forum. It is, however, excellent evidence to support my claim that we're not going to get a new constitution that functions well in a modern economy any time soon.
 
172andyou said:
I mean, Jefferson thought that a constitution shouldn't last for more than 20 years or so. So this one having been around for 250 doesn't seem to match his expectation. But otherwise, pretty sure you're ultra-narrow reading of the government and my being ok with the fact that such a reading is pretty modern isn't anything that's gonna get settled on an aviation forum. It is, however, excellent evidence to support my claim that we're not going to get a new constitution that functions well in a modern economy any time soon.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. What part of the Constitution is impeding a "modern economy"?
 
Obviously he's referring to the 16th amendment (authorized the income tax).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 
Part of the reason that ambiguous bills get passed is because both parties want it that way so that they can tell their supporters the most favorable/popular interpretation of legislation. SCOTUS striking down term limits on Congress-critters was very unfortunate as such would improve democracy, IMHO.
 
jbarrass said:
Obviously he's referring to the 16th amendment (authorized the income tax).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Click to expand...

They left out the words "not" and "never"
 
If you can find a copy of "The law that never was". That is a good read on the 16th.
 
Mikey52 said:
If you can find a copy of "The law that never was". That is a good read on the 16th.
Click to expand...
Looking for it.... not available at first glance, but I'll find it. Thanks for the point-out
 
I wouldn't expect them too. After all, who pays their salaries?
 
Mikey52 said:
I wouldn't expect them too. After all, who pays their salaries?
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of cases in which federal appeals courts have ruled against the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top