> Unless the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from doing a thing, Congress can do that thing. That's how the Constitution works.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The USA constitution is explicitly the opposite unless Congress is allowed to do something it's not allowed to. Chevron has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Chevron has everything to do with that.
"the ruling (Chevron) eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means." The judicial branch ruled to give themselves more power and congress less.
>The Chevron ruling being overturned takes power from the Executive effectively making Congress and the Judicial branch stronger.
You honestly can't believe that. I wish you had a modicum of integrity, instead of being so biased and partisan. Biden's only supreme court nomination had a great quote about trump's extreme court and how it makes its own rules.
"the [extreme] Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."
Now how does that apply to your stated opinion? When the extreme court finds something it doesn't like it won't let it stand, it will play Calvinball aka "NO FIXED RULES." It doesn't strengthen congress, it consolidates all power into the judicial branch.
I know this will get flagged because I didn't fellate you and how dare I criticize your biased and partisan extremist views. This website is like the corporate press, it normalizes extremists and makes them appear normal and sane.
Or at least prior to the nullification of Chevron, that's how it was supposed to work.