Скачать или смотреть Chevron, SCOTUS And The Primacy Of Executive Authority

An originalist’s philosophical and feminist perspective on law as it pertains to Relentless v Department Of Commerce and Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.

Examination of these cases as they affect the social justice movements historically and in the current, and how the rulings could affect the constitutional framing of the US government.

Argues for the following conclusion:

The chevron case ought stand, as to not do so would entail that the executive branch essentially has no real authority to execute the laws of congress, it would merely be an extension of congress at best, while the more likely outcome would be that it and congress would become an extension of big businesses, lobby groups, etc…by means of the courts.

As congress’s hands would be, well not quite tied, but certainly slowed to a point of ineffectiveness relative to businesses and the courts, while the executive branch would be entirely lame, remanded to little more than a performative puppet of nominally congress, but ultimately businesses by way of the courts.

While there is a concern regarding if a given execution of a law is reasonable, and I do hear the complaint therein as being potentially relevant, e.g. if reasonableness is defacto or definitionally determined by way of the executive branch then there is no real recourse to the courts. However, this concern appears to be founded on a poor understanding of the court’s capacity to determine if something is unreasonable or not, within the limit of the executive branch’s capacity to make reasonable determinations of the execution of a law.

Rather than defacto or definitional reasonableness, here we are speaking of prima facie reasonableness, as in, it is reasonable unless and until it is determined otherwise.

Such is the proper ordering of the governing apparatuses.

To wit; it would be possible to hold that the regan admin was not reasonably interpreting the law by way of the courts, even as prima facie there is an assumption of reasonableness to their interpretation.

This merely reaffirms the innocent until proven guilty notion, reasonable until proven otherwise. Such a ruling wouldn’t overturn chevron, it would adjust it to fit better within the overall legal framework. Affirming its main principle, that the executive branch does indeed have some latitude to determine how a law is executed, while acknowledging that a defacto determination of reasonableness avoids the possibility of an unreasonable execution.

Fwiw, if I recall the details of the original case correctly, the regan admin was not ‘reasonably executing the law’ as it was effectively not executing the law at all.