“Do you want to understand the significance of Chevron in as concise a manner as possible?
Here it is:
Nobody ever elected Fauci or Birx. And for every Fauci or Birx you know, there are a thousand just like them that you don't know lurking in every nook and cranny of your over-regulated life.
That. That's it. That's why it was essential to overturn Chevron.”
I so appreciate and respect people who have the strength of character, integrity, and courage to admit error; especially these days in our pardon-me-while-I-cover-my-ass environment. So admirable, thank you.
Federal judges are part of the US 3rd branch of government. While not elected, each must be nominated by the POTUS (1st branch) and confirmed by the Senate (2nd branch). In theory, federal judges can be dismissed by impeachment too. In contrast, unelected permanent federal bureaucrats are not Constitutional officers. But since WWII creation of the national security state, and especially since the original faulty Chevron decision in the 1980s, executive branch bureaucrats have been ceded power that was only Congress role to exercise.
The agencies are corrupt because the legislature is corrupt, and legislature is corrupt because we tolerate the lobbying and donations that control them.
I'm including a link to last year's committee exchange between Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. It perfectly illustrates Ms. Hageman's formidable talents, especially where the issue of executive branch agency overreach is concerned. With the recent court decision, we can hope for a broader pushback against agency dictatorship.
To add to this - the regulation must support the law. It cannot add things not in the law.
For example, I wrote about CDC funding the trans movement in schools using regulations. Congress has the power of the purse, yet CDC has given funding directly via grants to Superintendents all over the country, going around the local school boards, for supposed wellness centers for the “whole child”- which are really counseling centers, to try to convince children to become trans, in conjunction with healthcare companies and hospitals.
This is an example-& the Biden ministration has many of them (and they’re probably not the only one) if a gross abuse of regulations, to try to put forth an agenda that Congress would never approve.
So it’s always been this way that the regulation must support the law. During Covid there have been many violations of this, including violations of the Administrative Procedures Act which dictates how these regulations are formed.
Some of these cases did win as violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. for example CDC cannot mandate masks, which is how they got in public transportation, or excuse people from paying rent.
But Chevron let the supposed experts in these agencies get away with determining how the regulation should be spelled out, over the experts of the person suing. So when there was a question the agency was given the benefit of the doubt basically.
It really shouldn’t be this way when the regulations conflict with the intent of the law, with the intent of another law, or with the authority of another agency such as Congress to determine funding. So this is a good decision.
In fact I suspect Trumps lawyers if they’re smart may even use this in relation to Jack Smith and the overreach by the DOJ in terms of where they’re getting their funding and possibly even that appointment, since there is no special counsel law.
Reading the NRDC's published arguments from your link, they are worried this decision takes away EPA's ability to do its job. Hmmm. I'm my opinion, EPA hasn't been doing "its job" since its beginning. EPA has allowed us to eat, drink, and breathe poisons for decades. Now it wants to begin annihilation of our oceans because climate change. That's one agency needing annihilation itself.
Agreed 100%. It turns out that aircraft spraying coal fly ash into the stratosphere are causing increased heat retention overnight -- the exact opposite of what's allegedly intended but since it allows megacorps to dispose of their toxic waste for free, you'll not see it stop.
It revolves around the idea of authority. Corruption has destroyed our faith that justice is even possible. Now our systems run on power. Where do we turn for the final word on any controversy. Snopes? Even the f'in Supreme court has an agenda.
Nicole Shanahan said wealth was for helping the less fortunate. Most of our Oligarchs would say wealth is for crushing the competition. Their feeble displays of benevolence all stem from JD Rockefeller giving that poor kid a shiny dime. It wasn't JD's idea.
The advertisers told him he was hated and came up with tricks to cover his main attribute. He was a psychopath. Now Gates recycles all his schemes. I would like to see some legislation around name changes and shadow companies.
So yeah, if the authorities could rid themselves of your quip Dr. Nass, from Plandemic. Conflict of Interest. It seems the most natural of consequences. If you do not protect the interests of those you are tasked with protecting, you should lose your job. And no getting a lot more money for your side activities is not a justification.
The ruling class faces an existential crisis. The know they cannot rule while allowing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from medical tyranny, etc.
We the people also face an existential crisis. We cannot exist at all, not even as slaves, if the ruling class carries out their plans.
So we have this vertical war forced on us. Different from horizontal wars with frontiers that you can draw on maps. But I believe truth and non-violent determination and courage will win this war.
It's interesting to me to contemplate how our refusing the jab, gives us a reprieve. They did table top exercises. They knew these shots would kill and maim. Could it be they want to keep the free thinkers around and screw the sheep?
They belittle, cancel and harass the 'hesitant' (I love that expression). Yet we live and the ones who cooperate die and suffer very real consequences. I've tried to develop this idea, but everyone else easily dismiss me. They want lots of dead people kind of thing.
When you look at the overachievers, who passed on the kill shots, it makes you wonder if 'they' want us to survive, that we will be the ones to advance society and the sheep, god bless em, don't cut the mustard. Then irony goes on a rampage. The sheep attacking the only people, trying to save them!
What we don't need is more lawyers. What we do need is more STATESMEN that truly know, love and understand the Constitution and legislators that stop passing unconstitutional laws. Most of what DC does today violates the Constitution. When it comes to the Constitution lawyers are the largest group of professional that are constitutionally illiterate. So no we do not need more lawyers. We also need PEOPLE that are willing to understand the original intent of the Constitution (not the twisted version) and start standing up against the federal government. It is amazing the reaction from people when they learn the true authority is with the states and the people of the states not the federal government.
We also need people to learn that the constitution was a con job since there was no authority to write a constitution but rather to make proposals to amend the Articles of Confederation.
The overturning of the Chevron defense also works against the centralized state and for the idea of political subsidiarity, which states that the most local authority should take precedence in matters and not be overpowered by more centralized and distant authority. The idea of subsidiarity isn’t new, and it’s directly opposed to the idea of the globalist “global public-private partnerships” (G3P.)
The Covid response was of course the opposite of subsidiarity.
Thank you, Meryl, for clarifying this for me in a summary that is both concise and to the point.
As for the adding of lawyers to congress, its a two-edged sword... the motivation is for congress critters to craft the legislation as vaguely as possible in order to dress it up for public consumption, while preserving the ability for others to craft chicanery later on. Indeed, this was done post-911 (and many times since.) The so-called Patriot Act was nothing of the sort. The name of the act was intended to make it politically impossible to vote against. Several representatives later admitted as much.
The contents of the Patriot Act consisted of previously-posited legislation that had been voted on and voted down several times before, as it would enable a subsequent police state and therefor endanger the civil rights of the citizenry.
Twenty years on from 9/11, the department of (so-called) "Homeland Security" declared the most urgent terrorist threat to America to be homegrown terrorism within our borders. In recent years, they separately declared Latin rites Catholics as a terrorist threat and parents at PTA meetings complaining about schoolteachers proselytizing their sons into becoming their daughters and their daughters becoming their sons to be a terrorist threat. This, from Merrick Garland who came within inches of becoming a Supreme Court justice..
Do Not Comply. These people are NOT your friends, nor do they have your best interests at heart.
“Kilgore includes a proposal for reform—that the doctrine of stare decisis should have no bearing in constitutional law. This is the common-law doctrine that past decisions of the court are binding upon the Court and, especially, on lower courts. Kilgore's argument is that, since judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they owe primary allegiance to it, and not to other judges' holdings. So on constitutional issues, every judge must look anew at the guarantees of the Constitution.”
This reform could be enacted at the state level too I would think.
Precedent can be positive or negative but ultimately each case depends on the particular "facts", and the laws that are chosen to apply should be based on the constitution or statute if that power is granted in the constitution.
Thank you, Dr. Nass, for your comment about needing more lawyers in Congress. Constitutional lawyers, criminal and civil litigators. I have noticed that the lawyers that are currently serving are generally able to articulate situations and concepts clearly during hearings and interviews. This is crucial if the voting public is to understand complex issues without relying on the captured MSM. Thanks again.
“Do you want to understand the significance of Chevron in as concise a manner as possible?
Here it is:
Nobody ever elected Fauci or Birx. And for every Fauci or Birx you know, there are a thousand just like them that you don't know lurking in every nook and cranny of your over-regulated life.
That. That's it. That's why it was essential to overturn Chevron.”
- Retired USA colonel
https://x.com/cynicalpublius/status/1807402918993424758?s=46&t=AuwkS69LUgCQwbNTQq8gww
Or Gates and any of the other Globalists except Kissinger when he was VP for Nixon.
Kissinger was never VP. He was a communist through and through.
It was Agnew as the VP. Kissinger was the sec of state. My mistake.
I so appreciate and respect people who have the strength of character, integrity, and courage to admit error; especially these days in our pardon-me-while-I-cover-my-ass environment. So admirable, thank you.
Everybody was a communist except St. Ronald Reagan and St. Joseph McCarthy
Yes, but federal judges aren't elected either.
Federal judges are part of the US 3rd branch of government. While not elected, each must be nominated by the POTUS (1st branch) and confirmed by the Senate (2nd branch). In theory, federal judges can be dismissed by impeachment too. In contrast, unelected permanent federal bureaucrats are not Constitutional officers. But since WWII creation of the national security state, and especially since the original faulty Chevron decision in the 1980s, executive branch bureaucrats have been ceded power that was only Congress role to exercise.
The heads of all the agencies have been confirmed by the Senate as well - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44083
The agencies are corrupt because the legislature is corrupt, and legislature is corrupt because we tolerate the lobbying and donations that control them.
Taking money from lobbyists should be against the law and Matt Gaetz wrote a bill trying to stop that but of course it didn’t pass.
That’s how these scumbags get rich. They work for the donors! Corruption at its finest!
I'm including a link to last year's committee exchange between Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. It perfectly illustrates Ms. Hageman's formidable talents, especially where the issue of executive branch agency overreach is concerned. With the recent court decision, we can hope for a broader pushback against agency dictatorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z60KD7OTYfU
I love her. That’s a good one! It was a blessing to get rid of Lizzie girl. She’s corrupt like her daddy and a liar.
To add to this - the regulation must support the law. It cannot add things not in the law.
For example, I wrote about CDC funding the trans movement in schools using regulations. Congress has the power of the purse, yet CDC has given funding directly via grants to Superintendents all over the country, going around the local school boards, for supposed wellness centers for the “whole child”- which are really counseling centers, to try to convince children to become trans, in conjunction with healthcare companies and hospitals.
This is an example-& the Biden ministration has many of them (and they’re probably not the only one) if a gross abuse of regulations, to try to put forth an agenda that Congress would never approve.
So it’s always been this way that the regulation must support the law. During Covid there have been many violations of this, including violations of the Administrative Procedures Act which dictates how these regulations are formed.
Some of these cases did win as violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. for example CDC cannot mandate masks, which is how they got in public transportation, or excuse people from paying rent.
But Chevron let the supposed experts in these agencies get away with determining how the regulation should be spelled out, over the experts of the person suing. So when there was a question the agency was given the benefit of the doubt basically.
It really shouldn’t be this way when the regulations conflict with the intent of the law, with the intent of another law, or with the authority of another agency such as Congress to determine funding. So this is a good decision.
In fact I suspect Trumps lawyers if they’re smart may even use this in relation to Jack Smith and the overreach by the DOJ in terms of where they’re getting their funding and possibly even that appointment, since there is no special counsel law.
Reading the NRDC's published arguments from your link, they are worried this decision takes away EPA's ability to do its job. Hmmm. I'm my opinion, EPA hasn't been doing "its job" since its beginning. EPA has allowed us to eat, drink, and breathe poisons for decades. Now it wants to begin annihilation of our oceans because climate change. That's one agency needing annihilation itself.
Agreed 100%. It turns out that aircraft spraying coal fly ash into the stratosphere are causing increased heat retention overnight -- the exact opposite of what's allegedly intended but since it allows megacorps to dispose of their toxic waste for free, you'll not see it stop.
East Palestine.
The constant spraying, denied for decades, now recently admitted to. Is it coal ash? Who knows. Well, someone does.
It revolves around the idea of authority. Corruption has destroyed our faith that justice is even possible. Now our systems run on power. Where do we turn for the final word on any controversy. Snopes? Even the f'in Supreme court has an agenda.
Nicole Shanahan said wealth was for helping the less fortunate. Most of our Oligarchs would say wealth is for crushing the competition. Their feeble displays of benevolence all stem from JD Rockefeller giving that poor kid a shiny dime. It wasn't JD's idea.
The advertisers told him he was hated and came up with tricks to cover his main attribute. He was a psychopath. Now Gates recycles all his schemes. I would like to see some legislation around name changes and shadow companies.
So yeah, if the authorities could rid themselves of your quip Dr. Nass, from Plandemic. Conflict of Interest. It seems the most natural of consequences. If you do not protect the interests of those you are tasked with protecting, you should lose your job. And no getting a lot more money for your side activities is not a justification.
Exactly. It is about who has the authority. And we need a culture change to get people to become "public servants."
To deserve public servants we need to demonstrate that we won't tolerate tyrants.
The ruling class faces an existential crisis. The know they cannot rule while allowing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from medical tyranny, etc.
We the people also face an existential crisis. We cannot exist at all, not even as slaves, if the ruling class carries out their plans.
So we have this vertical war forced on us. Different from horizontal wars with frontiers that you can draw on maps. But I believe truth and non-violent determination and courage will win this war.
Yeah keeping the violence out is key!
It's interesting to me to contemplate how our refusing the jab, gives us a reprieve. They did table top exercises. They knew these shots would kill and maim. Could it be they want to keep the free thinkers around and screw the sheep?
They belittle, cancel and harass the 'hesitant' (I love that expression). Yet we live and the ones who cooperate die and suffer very real consequences. I've tried to develop this idea, but everyone else easily dismiss me. They want lots of dead people kind of thing.
When you look at the overachievers, who passed on the kill shots, it makes you wonder if 'they' want us to survive, that we will be the ones to advance society and the sheep, god bless em, don't cut the mustard. Then irony goes on a rampage. The sheep attacking the only people, trying to save them!
Congress have more lawyers?
What we have now are ASSttorneys!
Ass-ttorneys shouldn't even be breathing air in America.
Congress is full of so called lawyers that are owned and controlled bar card holders.
Most aren't worth a single slug turd. There's a reason legal mouth farters and politicians are so HATED!
Thank you! No more Attys and less government. The government is why we are in this mess. THEY LIED TO US AND ARE STILL LYING TO US!
No, get new congressmen that can do their damn jobs without lobbyists and reduce the government!
🎯
Great reply’s so far! Keep ‘em coming.
The devil is in the detail, and in the interpretation, and in the implementation, and in the motivation...
We will never have a law that says everything. It will always need to be interpreted by just and righteous people.
To judge righteously has always been the issue. To determine the intent and purpose of the law.
Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
(Prov 31:8-9)
What we don't need is more lawyers. What we do need is more STATESMEN that truly know, love and understand the Constitution and legislators that stop passing unconstitutional laws. Most of what DC does today violates the Constitution. When it comes to the Constitution lawyers are the largest group of professional that are constitutionally illiterate. So no we do not need more lawyers. We also need PEOPLE that are willing to understand the original intent of the Constitution (not the twisted version) and start standing up against the federal government. It is amazing the reaction from people when they learn the true authority is with the states and the people of the states not the federal government.
We also need people to learn that the constitution was a con job since there was no authority to write a constitution but rather to make proposals to amend the Articles of Confederation.
BINGO. Regulatory Agences are now just front groups for the industries they are supposed to be regulating.
The overturning of the Chevron defense also works against the centralized state and for the idea of political subsidiarity, which states that the most local authority should take precedence in matters and not be overpowered by more centralized and distant authority. The idea of subsidiarity isn’t new, and it’s directly opposed to the idea of the globalist “global public-private partnerships” (G3P.)
The Covid response was of course the opposite of subsidiarity.
And I was told it is enshrined in EU law, while it is not followed there.
Thank you, Meryl, for clarifying this for me in a summary that is both concise and to the point.
As for the adding of lawyers to congress, its a two-edged sword... the motivation is for congress critters to craft the legislation as vaguely as possible in order to dress it up for public consumption, while preserving the ability for others to craft chicanery later on. Indeed, this was done post-911 (and many times since.) The so-called Patriot Act was nothing of the sort. The name of the act was intended to make it politically impossible to vote against. Several representatives later admitted as much.
The contents of the Patriot Act consisted of previously-posited legislation that had been voted on and voted down several times before, as it would enable a subsequent police state and therefor endanger the civil rights of the citizenry.
Twenty years on from 9/11, the department of (so-called) "Homeland Security" declared the most urgent terrorist threat to America to be homegrown terrorism within our borders. In recent years, they separately declared Latin rites Catholics as a terrorist threat and parents at PTA meetings complaining about schoolteachers proselytizing their sons into becoming their daughters and their daughters becoming their sons to be a terrorist threat. This, from Merrick Garland who came within inches of becoming a Supreme Court justice..
Do Not Comply. These people are NOT your friends, nor do they have your best interests at heart.
“Kilgore includes a proposal for reform—that the doctrine of stare decisis should have no bearing in constitutional law. This is the common-law doctrine that past decisions of the court are binding upon the Court and, especially, on lower courts. Kilgore's argument is that, since judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they owe primary allegiance to it, and not to other judges' holdings. So on constitutional issues, every judge must look anew at the guarantees of the Constitution.”
This reform could be enacted at the state level too I would think.
-from
Judicial Tyranny, by Carrol Kilgore
reason.com/1979/03/01/judicial-tyranny
Precedent can be positive or negative but ultimately each case depends on the particular "facts", and the laws that are chosen to apply should be based on the constitution or statute if that power is granted in the constitution.
We need to rescind the Laws written by the Corporations for the Corporations.
Thank you, Dr. Nass, for your comment about needing more lawyers in Congress. Constitutional lawyers, criminal and civil litigators. I have noticed that the lawyers that are currently serving are generally able to articulate situations and concepts clearly during hearings and interviews. This is crucial if the voting public is to understand complex issues without relying on the captured MSM. Thanks again.
It's a nice thought but how many "constitutional lawyers" know or will admit that the constitution was based on a fraud?