Hah. But won't that will just make them more ambiguous, especially in technical issues? (Imagine laws defining machine guns, for example)
It's not though. And why it has had to be "re-interpreted" many times over the years by both elected officials and judges. Certainly individuals should not be able to own nuclear weapons in their homes.
On the SCOTUS level with a bunch to top-tier law student law clerks where the cases they choose to hear generally have policy ramifications beyond the immediate case, yes as to legal research. But even then, not so much in matters of expert opinion on technical subjects. That moves them from a judicial to an investigative role.
Please clarify.
The specific subject matter is beside the point though. I was illustrating that shorter laws (or fewer laws) do not necessarily make them easier to interpret, and really only introduces ambiguity.
No idea - I can't say that I'm that well versed on what modern purses are capable of carrying.
If only our founding fathers were prescient enough to define the word "bear" for us
It was an interpretation of the enacted Administrative Procedures Act, however Roberts in this instance found it the other way.
Not really. The research is more on the legal principles that the court is deciding. They don't and really are not supposed to be going out and doing their own investigation into the case facts other than as presented by the parties.
I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.
Baltimore.
Me, too.
I wonder if anyone will be able to successfully challenge the FAA’s self designation as a “public health authority”
If only our founding fathers were prescient enough to define the word "bear" for us
But, after thinking of all possible scenarios, no reasonable person (I'm sure) would argue that there could be no restrictions levied on even this definition. Should I be able to bring a carry-on full of live grenades onto a commercial flight? Should my kid be able to bring a loaded gun to his elementary school classes? Should a convicted murderer be able to bring a machine gun into his sentencing at the courthouse?
Pretending that a simple clause such as "shall not be infringed" precludes any further interpretation or limitations is absurd.
Nope. They just tried to reign in the 2A stuff with one of the recent rulings. They'll find a way to keep it from damaging their broader interests. A comprehensive win won't happen until mass ideological sensibility returns to the general populace, and they've still got the education system in their grip, so not holding my breath. We have the rulers we deserve, not the ones we want.
That is refreshing.....
Except when they're not....
It's the politicians as much as the bureaucrats. Each administration comes in with an agenda, and appoints the top 2 or 3 tiers of agency leadership to enact it. Career bureaucrats can try to resist, but the appointees call the shots on major policy. The next crew comes in and reverses everything.
All of it passed and was signed, but Chevron doesn't touch the underlying laws.
Not confused at all. It applies to the admin side, like you said. As long as they "comply with the civil law" nothing changed. Courts are full of cases where the prosecution says someone violated the law and the defendant says nope. This provides a much needed leveling of the playing field.
Yup.
Yup.
