SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Runaway1956 (2926)
(email not shown publicly)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Journal of Runaway1956 (2926)
Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron.
The question comes to the court in a case brought by a group of commercial fishing companies. They challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management plans.
Relying on Chevron, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the companies’ challenge to the rule. Judge Judith Rogers explained that although federal fishery law makes clear that the government can require fishing boats to carry monitors, it does not specifically address who must pay for the monitors. Because the NMFS’s interpretation of federal fishery law as authorizing industry-funded monitors was a reasonable one, Rogers concluded, the court should defer to that interpretation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:40PM (4 children)
When Congress passes a law that is vague in some manner, the judiciary doesn't get to fill in the blanks about how to implement the law. That's legislating from the bench, and it's an abuse of power. You're correct that SCOTUS deciding to hear this case is a strong indication that they intend to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine.
The law in question is the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It specifically directs NOAA to charge foreign fishing vessels fees to pay for observers. It also directs the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to establish a schedule of fees to pay for observers in the North Pacific. It directs NOAA to develop fishery management programs, but defers to NOAA on some details of the implementation.
Again, Congress specifically directed that vessel owners should pay for observers in some instances. Otherwise, Congress tasked NOAA with creating fishery management programs. If Congress considered it unreasonable to expect that vessel owners would pay for observers, they would not have added that to the law at all. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not specify how other observers should be paid for, but tasked NOAA with creating fishery management programs.
Congress did not dictate every detail of how to implement fishery management plans. However, they delegated this to NOAA, not to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS overturns this, as expected, it would be massive power grab. There are procedures for the executive branch to develop policy, which requires giving notice and soliciting public comments. As long as the procedures are followed and the policy is a reasonable interpretation of the law, there is no problem. SCOTUS most certainly is not authorized to create policy, and overturning the Chevron deference would be usurping authority.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @01:07AM (2 children)
That's not a bad take on the situation.
More to the point, if Chevron is overturned, ATF's recent decisions, and future court cases are going to be thrown into chaos. The landscape will change dramatically. Congress is already questioning ATF's bullshit decisions on arm braces, and beginning to question why licensed dealer's licenses are being pulled for stupid, simple clerical errors. The future for the ATF doesn't look really good. In fact, some are calling for the abolition of the ATF. It's not like they actually work cases, to solve crimes. As a rule, when local police forces make a bust, they make a phone call to the ATF. An agent shows up, scopes out the case, searching for an angle to file federal charges. At which point in time, a press release is handed out, with the ATF taking credit for the entire operation.
Yeah, I'd like to see the ATF disbanded.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @05:15AM (1 child)
I feel much the same way about border patrol agencies, in that they should be abolished and replaced.
There is a legitimate need to secure borders and ports of entry. This means making sure that anyone entering the country is doing so legally, that they pay any customs duties that they owe, and that they're not smuggling in contraband. That is not my objection.
I have a problem with border patrol agents operating away from the border. They claim the authority to operate within 100 miles of borders or ports of entry. I've heard many stories of border patrol agents boarding Amtrak trains that happen to be operating near the Canadian border and demanding that people show they are in the country legally. This is not a rare occurrence at all. They're not doing it to apprehend specific individuals who are known to be in the country illegally. It's a fishing expedition.
I have a reasonable expectation that if I'm entering the United States at a border or port of entry, that I will be subject to screening. Provided that this doesn't involve a warrantless search of electronic devices or similar abuses, this is something that I should expect and accept. However, as a law abiding person, I should be free from harassment by border patrol agents when I'm not entering the United States at a border or port of entry. I'm an American citizen who is following the law. I shouldn't have to prove to law enforcement that I'm legally in the country just because I'm riding a train that's fairly close to the Canadian border.
I believe there are similarities between the issues you raise about ATF. Border patrol agencies clearly have jurisdiction at borders and ports of entry. They've stretched their powers egregiously, setting up checkpoints well away from borders and ports of entry. The issues you raise about ATF involve the second amendment. My objection with border patrol agencies involves the fourth amendment. Courts typically apply higher standards of scrutiny when issues involve the Bill of Rights or the 14th amendment. I'd like to abolish the existing border patrol agencies and replace them with ones that operate lawfully. To be clear, I'm not opposed to border security. I do have a problem when border patrol agencies greatly exceed their authority and harass law abiding people.
I actually understand your objections to ATF. I hope you can understand why I have a big problem with border patrol agencies. My objections aren't about politics. They're about the jurisdiction of these agencies being stretched to absurd proportions.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 10, @03:41PM
The problem is with air travel. If you can land a little Cessna in your home town, then your home town can conceivably be considered a "port of entry".
But, I agree with you. Border patrol should be mostly confined to 25 miles or so of the coasts, and the borders. 50 miles might work. But unrestricted access to the entire continental US, with virtually unlimited powers, is beyond anything reasonable. From what I understand, if Customs wants to search, they need no warrant of any type. They don't even have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion. That goes for public spaces, commercial spaces, and private homes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 17, @12:04PM
Something can still be unreasonable, even if Congress genuinely thinks otherwise. One shouldn't have to say that.
More likely, this was just more half-assed law.
Even so, the NOAA doesn't have a blank check to implement such regulation. For a hypothetical example, suppose an agency could implement this law in such a way that it has a fixed cost of $10k per boat or $10k per month per boat. Why would it ever do the latter? A: to obstruct the industry in question (by increasing the cost of compliance with regulation), solicit bribes (selectively deciding how costly the compliance with regulation could be), or to push some political agenda (like creating some bullshit jobs for a friendly labor union).
The problem is that a lot of unreasonable interpretations are sliding in this gap.