HHusky
New Fish
You seem not to understand the implications. We're just going have unelected judges filling in the legislative gaps. Which makes sense, because lawyers are experts in everything. I know you agree.
Chevron Deference
- Thread starter Bob_C
- Start date
We have Congress to fill in legislative gaps. If the EPA wants to make CO2 (otherwise known as plant food) a pollutant and subject to EPA regulation, then it should get a Congressman to sponsor legislation and define permitted CO2 emission. Right now we have unelected bureaucrats and the President "filling in the gaps". Like the "gap" of using a ICE in your car. You think having federal judges filling in the gaps is a better solution? Feel free to amend the Constitution. Right now, its Congress's job.
H understands none of this at all.
houseofpain247
Guest
First time I ever actually tried to engage with HHusky and I offered up an actual post with complete sentences. She can't even respond with single thought? I guess should have known better.
HHusky
New Fish
The girls' "solution" is for Congress to enact legislation that anticipates every single question which might arise and every factual application regarding legislation it enacts, in advance of its effective date.
Every legislator (and every adult) on earth knows that this will not and cannot happen and that someone will inevitably decide what the legislation means in any particular factual setting.
That you prefer the decision maker be a former divorce or personal injury attorney could be defensible, I suppose. That you engage in some fantasy about Congress performing the task in each case demonstrates an indefensible and willful ignorance of how real life proceeds.
If congressional representatives and senators quit coddling special interest to line their pockets and war chests, sponsoring wars,, selling out the people that voted them in, and passing bills to keep themselves in power and voting themselves raises..you might find they have plenty of time to handle The People's business .
It's just amazing how much work they do to avoid doing their job!
Edit.. please note, that's a bipartisan problem!
Last edited:
I'm sure you didn't buy dinner before the ass phucking started. If Congress authorizes the IRS to institute a consolidated corporate return, they are authorized to do so. The issue is your "gaps" in which major policy issues, like CO2 as a pollutant should be left up to Congress. This wouldn't be a problem except you fascist dems decided that they couldn't get a product expelled by humans and is a plant food through Congress as a pollutant. So they didn't. Hope that helps.
26 U.S. Code § 1501 - Privilege to file consolidated returns
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1501#tab_default_1
- An https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-161778134-201480122&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:A:chapter:6:subchapter:A:section:1501 of corporations shall, subject to the provisions of this chapter, have the privilege of making a consolidated return with respect to the income tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year in lieu of separate returns. The making of a consolidated return shall be upon the condition that all corporations which at any time during the taxable year have been members of the https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-161778134-201480122&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:A:chapter:6:subchapter:A:section:1501 consent to all the consolidated return regulations prescribed under section 1502 prior to the last day prescribed by law for the filing of such return. The making of a consolidated return shall be considered as such consent. In the case of a corporation which is a member of the https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-161778134-201480122&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:A:chapter:6:subchapter:A:section:1501 for a fractional part of the year, the consolidated return shall include the income of such corporation for such part of the year as it is a member of the https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-161778134-201480122&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:A:chapter:6:subchapter:A:section:1501.
So instead we have unelected bureaucrats doing the same thing, and that's somehow unequivocally better?
Also, I don't understand why everyone is acting like agencies can no longer implement administrative policy, etc. The only difference is that they don't get to tell everyone to fuck off when challenged
Last edited:
Far better that lifelong career party members determine these things right comrade?
As usual the "adults" can't figure out that abusing the shit out of a rule to undermine the rule of law will eventually backfire.
They’re experts.
Supposedly
houseofpain247
Guest
Can you understand what the concept of a guideline is?
The main issue in this particular case was that Congress passed SO LITTLE information that the agency had free rein to take vast amounts of liberty with the policy.
What if the law provided guidelines for funding and payment of new positions created? It doesn't have to literally cross every t and dot every I.
Instead, you had agencies making their own rules, creating their own position and forcing taxpayers to pay for the position with no outlet for appeal or input.
It's crazy how far gone you are that you can't seem to understand nuance.
100% it did...
