What is the Chevron Doctrine?

[@donpeterson9900]

It’s great that this was overruled because experts seem to be wrong on almost every major issue they have been allowed to oversee.

[@tonytay4320]

Don't be so concern down the road when Big Business comes to your backyard say nothing. Trust me they are coming the and so it Pollution. $$$$$$

[@joan3891]

It’s high time we challenge the administrative state!

[@jamesbrent2504]

The Founders never envisioned the administrative state. Congress allows agencies to operate outside the Constitution. It's definitely not good for the country.

[@tonytay4320]

When Pollution comes to your town say nothing just accept it.

[@johnchandler1687]

How old are you? Since the anti-pollution movement began in earnest in the 1960s polution has been reduced over 90%. Of course, the U.S. government continues to cover up polution by their big donors.

[@sharkkt]

“The Founders” does not describe every Founding Father. They were a group of very different people with a diverse set of beliefs. I think that, Hamilton, for example, probably would have liked the administrative state, he believed that the people and Congress should have less power and that the Executive branch should have an extreme amount of power independent of any other branch of government

[@johnchandler1687]

@@sharkkt Read Thomas Jefferson's autobiography. He said Hamolton, as Secretary of Treasury, along with his cronies put out rumors that the old Continentals were not going to be redeemed for full value. His speculator pals then when around buying them up for pennies on the dollar. Of course, then the Treasury redeemed them at full value for dollars. So he wasn't a big hero as history makes him out to be. Aaron Burr h a d good reason to kill him in that duel. Burr was trashed by Hamilton's friends in the press unjustly.

[@sharkkt]

@@johnchandler1687 I never said he was a hero or a villain, what does this have to do with anything???? I was replying to the guy who said “The Founders would never-“ and pointing out that the Founding Fathers didn’t have one set of beliefs, they were different people with different beliefs.

[@cosmichrist]

This is one of the best explanations on the tubes.

[@jamescrouch1693]

The agencies who interpret are making law and then are the judges and enforcement of the law, without opposition. That is why I like the change.

[@thomasinterian5537]

Thank God he’s coming. We all need it really really really bad.

[@dianekeil2967]

This has been affecting all of us for years - I began to see these kind of agencies getting over the top power starting in the 70's - no one understood what I was telling them and called me crazy - I am so glad this is all coming to the light now - it's hell when you know what they are doing to us and the majority just trusts the government !! Our lives have been ran by non-elected agencies for long enough - now we will start seeing freedom begin to creep in ! Thank you Jesus !!

[@WebenHad]

Amen

[@MAKOSPEED9]

And that's how the non-elected officials rule/govern the country.

[@rckli]

Except they don’t 😂 and it isn’t how 😅 Imagine one state arguing one plus one was 2 and another state saying it’s actually 3. The chevron would be the equivalent of saying “this official says it is 2” The problem is when these officials say things the public has been lied to - such as “covid isn’t that bad - don’t wear a mask” by some officials and “covid is a pandemic - mask will stop you from getting the disease” (neither is true - as masks prevent the SPREAD of disease, not whether or not you’ll get sick) When reality itself is being argued and one side is literally just saying “you are crazy - we know we are right: there is no disease” as the dead pile up, the movie “don’t look up” and “1984” start to make a lot more sense to me >_>

[@libertypastor1307]

Thanks for the very thorough, but concise explanation! I hope the SCOTUS overturns the Chevron doctrine. Agencies are not delegated power to interpret laws, that's the job of the courts. It is the duty of legislators to write clear laws with no ambiguity. Plus, all laws should be rooted in protecting the life, property, and liberties of the people; not regulating them! This has led to the loss of many rights.

[@whirledpeaz5758]

They did overturn it this last week.

[@libertypastor1307]

@@whirledpeaz5758 Great! Thanks for letting me know. I will look it up.

[@946towguy2]

@@whirledpeaz5758 They limited the doctrine back to where it belongs. Chevron doctrine was never intended to give an administrative agency the power to create new crimes, but rather to reduce the burden in the courts and the legislature when a law can be reasonably interpreted to apply to a set of facts. For example: if a law says, "Mussels, oysters and other similar single shell aquatic molluscs' it is reasonable to defer to an agency which determines that the law applies to limpets but not bivalves.

[@vincenttiene]

Every time there is a change in the administration, there is a change in federal agents. In some way, it reflects the current administration's. With the new Chevron ruling, decisions are made by judges and ultimately in the hands of SCOTUS. With a lifetime appointment, we are stuck with a conservative/liberal decision for generations. That's all it is.

[@garettsikes4449]

Quick and helpful! Thanks 👍🏼

[@Paul-vk6ed]

Then what’s the point of a judge or the point of congress ?

[@bigbootytvplusnews1054]

Puppets

[@soulmedicine]

Does this effect the UCC codes? D.o.t ?

[@vaughnslavin9784]

Thank you!

[@gillesandfio8440]

Applause. Happy Independence Day!

[@tremblingone4269]

Chevron WAS like getting run over by the big rear tires of a tractor - which have angled or Chevron tread.

[@mattharmon3838]

That's the problem they don't know.

[@JamesWaltman-k3e]

The Constitution Founders included the 2nd. Amendment to throttle the Government, when that Gov't. exceeded it's authority. And governments do have histories of exceeding their authorities. Benign-or-not. Gov't serves the People. The People do NOT serve Gov't, which is the sorry situation at present.

[@rckli]

Wowowowowow thank you so much for this clear and concise video explaining the very topic your title references I thought videos like these were lost to the sea of shitty videos but no, people like you still exist Bravo 👏🏽

[@richreddell3569]

That’s because congress doesn’t want to be bothered with decisions, too many vacations are being interrupted with actually doing their job .

[@koltoncrane3099]

Yup it’s like how I was listening to a guy talk about tyranny. He’s like you can’t be a dictator in the U.S. by being president. No, you gotta be the wizard in the wizard of oz behind the curtain. It makes sense once you realize a ton of people work for several presidents for decades. Like Henry Kissinger worked for a long time with different government administrations.

[@williammielenz3752]

It's crazy to think that 535 congressman and 9 justices have the education to manage the complexities of our modern civilization.

[@jasonparker6138]

Why would we allow experts to make decisions that affect us? That should be done by people who are trying to get clicks on social media.

[@ShawnGitahi]

Noone stops you from electing experts

[@wjpreslar]

What WAS the Chevron doctrine? FIFY😊

[@learningtofish7036]

Overdue. Congress has deferred responsibility for decades.

[@whirledpeaz5758]

What WAS........

[@3rdpig]

What is it? It's dead, Jim.

[@lsmitty8839]

But our courts dont make laws, only law should be constitutition yes ?? This should bring us to constitutional law

[@eddarby469]

This isn't "the Courts" making laws though. This is "the Agencies", institutions of the executive branch, making laws. Congress has ceded their authority and duty to these agencies.

[@adamkoepke1366]

Great, so now we have crucial decisions being made by people who have no specific expertise in the fields they're ruling on. Not sure I want a politician making decisions about how to keep our air and water safe. Once again, another absolutely terrible decision from this out of control court.

[@usnavy-retired9800]

The problem is the either Repub or Dems will place "Their own experts" in the positions of power within these organizations, who will, in turn, pass judgement from an "dubious expert opinion" and make their own laws. These laws cannot be changed except by Congressional action and, depending on the party in power, they may not get changed at all. At least this way (Chevron defeated) we can hold the Congress people accountable to the people, for the laws they pass...as it should be.

[@pappa2293]

Experts in their field, excuse while I finish laughing. DEI has no experts only incompetence.

[@renesteitz8613]

🙏🇺🇲🙏🇺🇲🙏

[@jthamilton9083]

Why hasn’t anyone ever heard of it😂😂😂😂

[@RogerPlant-q7r]

Police ever take your money.saying it's for or from drugs.that is chevron.thay didn't have to prove nuthin.You do.

[@jaytackett6545]

ATTORNEYS CAN NOT DEFEND YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY ORGANIZATIONS OR COMPANIES UNDER TITLE 28 USC 3002 15 ITS A FOREIGN ORGANIZATION OPERATION ON THE UNITED STATES SOIL.

[@Bacteria43va]

federal reserve?

[@EdwardM919]

Expect to have a lot more oil spills and crap in food that isnt suppose to be in it.

[@ramdom_assortment]

Bullshit. In terms of health, the FDA has been using Chevron for years to make it harder for people to health themselves. This also makes it hard for Trump to add that asinine 10% global tariff he wants, yet of course not many people are talking about that.

[@Snipergoat1]

Not at all. What this does is forces federal agencies to defend their interpretations of rules. It gets rid of the notion that a federal agency set up to enforce the appropriate field would necessarily be experts in that field. The problem is that these definitions were determined at the top level which is the cabinet member. These guys are political appointees that are placed in for political reasons for more often than for any knowledge of the subject. Thus we have things like a secretary of transportation that doesn't basic physics and a director of the ATF who knows little about alcohol, tobacco, and next to nothing about firearms. Very often they have mid level underlings that know about the subjects but underlings don't make the policy changes. These are done at the top level where people know the least and everything is done for political reasons, not logical or factual ones.

[@ronjones1414]

You need to change the title

[@XrayMike17plus1]

What is the Chevron Doctrine? Dead.

[@mchrysogelos7623]

GREAT!!!! O Happy Day.

[@jonathanleonard1152]

Judges courts and legislators do not have scientists and engineers on their payroll. EPA does.

[@usnavy-retired9800]

And that is the exact problem...Seems only liberal experts are hired by these organizations, since most of these departments were created by the liberal hivemind and many of their decisions defy explanation; except that they support a political agenda, rather then a scientific one.

[@ramdom_assortment]

Do you like the idea of Trump's asinine tax plans? Chevron being struck down makes it harder for him too. Btw the FDA has scientists too, yet every supplement that has come out that works too well they've tried to ban it, not anymore.

[@johnh6515]

It’s too bad they have shown too often they also have agenda’s, not for country but for party. Look at this diverse administration for starters. DEI hires are not The best in all cases. All things equal, is one thing…..selecting the pool of applicants by diversity,first and foremost is always going to be a failed strategy. Merit must rule .

[@Snipergoat1]

That would be wonderful if they consulted these guys but they don't. The power flows the other way and changes are made for political reasons. For example, the director of the ATF knows nothing about firearms. However Biden wanted a general crackdown of firearms so they made some changes, such as saying that a medical brace on a pistol changed it into a short barrelled rifle. Well any expert or anyone that had any firearms knowledge at all would say "That's stupid" and could list half a dozen reasons why. Instead the director tells them that they are changing this and it is their job to create a reason that justifies this. In other words there are experts available at their fingertips, however the experts are used to justify the actions rather than determine if actions are a good idea. This ruling eliminates the courts having to give preference to the agencies definitions and acknowledges that the decisions are in fact not usually made by experts but by far less knowledgeable political appointees. Thus they must be able to defend their ideas just like anyone else.

[@usnavy-retired9800]

The real life reality is that these "so-called" scientists, may or may not have the expertise, but Many, many of them are ruled by a political agenda and that of the people who appoint them. In many instances their "expertise" is shot down by politics and/or they themselves believe in the agenda more then they have the integrity to stand up to it. (EXAMPLE: Fauci) Bottom Line Here: Law and rules for the general public should only be passed by Congress and NEVER, EVER by members of an un-elected branch of Government. Congressmen can be advised by the agencies and also listen to counter arguments and filter out the truth from the Bull$hit before they make their decisions to vote yea or nay on regulations...Afterwards, they are then held accountable, by the people, for their vote. This is the way the founding Fathers set it up so that Govt should never rule absolutely.

[@SuperTinyTurtle]

....only tiny-minds think this is "good"