If the House and Senate didn't pass off the work and did their actual jobs, we wouldn't need agencies to handle these things. Force the House and Senate to actually put in a full workweek like every one else.
The judicial branch is extremely important. It is about balancing power. Removing checks and balances for the branches of government is extremely dangerous and a threat to our rights
Uh, the legislative branches job is to create laws, the executives branches job is too enforce them. The problem is that whenever a leftist admin is in power, they give these agencies the greenlight to start creating laws. See ATF for more details
@@MultiNKnight True! Frankly, the government needs teeth. It needs to be able to chase wealthy businessmen with legal and financial harm, but Republicans (and Democrats TBH) hate getting caught red-handed so their trying to remove those teeth. We cannot allow businessmen to run our government… lobbyists are horrible enough already 😞
At this point, even though they should limit them, there is no way they will let go of any kind of power. They are way too corrupt and authoritarian and will never let go.
The SCOTUS is not going to be limiting their own power IT would actually EXPAND SCOTUS power while limiting the admin state. SOOOO they will probably rule in GRANTING THEMSELVES MORE POWER!
Even reducing it will go a long way and save a lot of businesses that go bankrupt from just government fines. But it is true, the regulatory takeover of our elected government is complete, there's no going back. Unelected officials run the show from behind the scenes.
The Legislative Branch is in charge of writing laws and the Judicial Branch in charge of interpreting them. Those unelected bureaucrats you speak of are enacting/enforcing laws that Congress wrote. Retake Civics 101 and stop embarrassing America.
One of the biggest issues we have in this country is the size and scope of government. Federal agencies need to be reigned in and government needs to be scaled down.
The governments most important function was being a watchdog over big business and private interests. Now they have been corrupted and no longer represent the people. So basically the only cop we had has been compromised, that isnt a win for anyone except those who stand to profit from no cop. You think the market is going to police itself, look around to how we got to where we are was from eroding away government oversight and corrupting lawmakers.
Until there's a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, a flood or, God forbid, a 2008 Wall Street investment bank fiasco that threw the whole world into an economic tailspin. Everybody loves the government then. It's like that song from the Ghostbusters movie: Who ya gonna call?
But people have the right to appeal these decisions to court so as long as they have a right to appeal it to federal court I don't see what the problem is
@@soltantio AMENDMENT VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
@@porthosduvallon5301You can't really blame the OP. Even lawyers and judges struggle with the Administrative Procedures Act and defining Article I judges. It's a complex area of law that has arguably reach the attention of the high court because of the investment firms and individuals would prefer to litigate in federal court with a jury rather than before an administrative law judge. There have been countless claims from social security and SSI claimant that would prefer to have their cases argued in federal court, but unless they have a constitutional claim, the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible to appeal a social security decision.
As someone who had to deal with a similar issue...I agree the defendant should be allowed to have a jury trial. Otherwise its a railroad situation as the non-jury trial is overseen by a biased federal fudge (often employed by the very same government entity that is prosecuting the person). .
All judges are employed by the same government prosecuting ppl. Jury trials are flawed as well, they aren’t fair as the jury can hide their bias to punish a defendant.
Ummm, no. Let’s use the trial of Trump as an example with only the best attorneys who decided he should just go with a judge’s decision. See, it’s not that difficult when you have the BEST attorneys.
Worker protections should always be a goal. Safe drinking water should always be a goal. Safe cars and buildings should always be our goal. Safe roads should always be the goal. Shall I continue? Would you trust me serving you food in a restaurant that no health inspector has checked to see if it is following safe practices? People like you aren't thinking about the ramifications of these things. You scream limited government, but thar limited government ONLY helps corporations make more money while making products that are less safe for us. Don't be a corporate hack and stand up for them.
@G.Markavis You do realize that the right-wingers don't care about deregulation for small businesses, right? This is deregulation for the 1%. This has been a corporate agenda for decades. Now, we have an extreme enough supreme court where it's coming true. They already gutted the Clean Water Act last year by telling the EPA they can't regulate waters adjacent to OUR DRINKING WATER. That means anyone can throw toxic waste into the rivers that we rely on for drinking water with impunity. Once again... it benefits only the 1% and their multi-billion dollar corporations. I suggest you look up the story about The Radium Girls. It started the fight for workers' rights. Look at what a corporation was doing to those women. All these people have died for us to get laws to protect us. Why is air travel so safe now when it wasn't in the past? REGULATION AGAINST GREED. You have to regulate these corporations as they have proven time and time again that without laws, they will always do the wrong thing and hurt people. Corporations need more regulations against them... not less. As far as the censorship thing. I don't know what you're talking about. Left-wingers used to try and cancel nonsense 10 years ago, and now right-wingers are trying to cancel and censor everything. The First Amendment says that the government can't censor your speech. A company can do it. Just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. Same concept.
@@G.Markavis this isn't about "more government" this is about oversight, nothing more. Do you like clean water to drink? How about safe food? Do you want the pharmaceutical industry to flood the streets with synthetic opiates? You wanna live in a country like China where there is no building safety codes? Where buildings just fall down bcuz the construction company wanted to save some money so they didn't put any rebar in the cheap concrete they used. Wake up!! This isn't for us!! This is for the rich & corporations to gain even more power & less oversight. You want Bill Gates to buy up all the farms in the country or Jeff Bezos & Walmart to own everything & turn the entire country into a gigantic monopoly they control?? I don't like the government anymore than the next person but these agencies serve a purpose & without oversight we'd be living in an even more dystopian nightmare
Non-elected officials should not have any power to subvert the constitution. appointing others to do the job of a statesman is an admission of derelict of duty.
More like Congress hasn’t been doing their job and instead of congressional official solving issues and passing legislations, they have mostly been grinding in a deadlock over the most simplest issue. If Congress don’t start moving their butts and create new legislations the country would have an outdated system and a system that is slow to change of the time. Besides, Congress has passed less than 100 legislations during there four years so far and it is pretty embarrassing. They probably have only passed 20 legislation.
This is just another attempt to give all the power to the rich/elite & corporations. They don't like oversight bcuz it cuts into their profits, this would be disastrous for the general public. Do you like clean water to fish in?? How about to drink?? Do you like food safety?? The rich want to strip away anyone standing against them & their every desire.. WAKE UP!! They always cloak their real desires in a shroud of "this will help the people" when in reality it'll only give even more power to the wealthy & multinational corporations to do anything they want
@@mdillinger2010it’s far more than that. Agencies give the feds the power to charge fines and penalties based on who’s in office and what their political agenda is. Let’s say Biden creates an agency called the Gender Affirmation Agency, and their sole purpose is to persecute those who don’t agree with trans rights. You mistakenly call a trans person by their born sex because they have yet to transition. The trans person complains to this new agency and the agency fines you thousands of dollars for committing a hate crime even though you have profusely apologized . That’s what’s at stake. The ability of your rights enshrined in the Constitution (the right to a fair trail by jury in this instance) to be upheld, not circumvented by a federal agency. This has been out of hand for decades and it’s time it came to a stop.
Because we don't want corporations ripping us off for one. So we don't get invaded for another. Then there's health care for old people, education subsidies, highways, bank insurance, air traffic control, keeping our ports and oceans safe, research and development.
What a way to spin this. The real issue is the federal alphabet agencies have been trying to make up regulations that our legislative branch has not passed into law. This has gone on for years and we're sick of it.
The executive branch is supposed to be checked by the legislative branch. The administrative state is way to overreaching. You can't make laws in the executive branch. You are supposed to enforce them im the executive branch. The people we elect to run the government should be, and aren't, running the government. This is why the federal government needs to be cut back severely.
It’s a flawed design, because as you describe it, it is biased towards inaction (which is a policy agenda). Without passing normative judging judgement, there are functional requirements. A small state was fine from the 17-19 centuries. The enormous complexity, and concomitant risks, of modern economies, require dedicated experts and administration. To be effective, the state needs to have sufficient resources, expertise, and competence in relation to the market - and honestly it been coming up short for decades. Modern problems are often coordination dilemmas, which is literally what governance can solve. But that doesn’t mean accountability is not possible - look at parliamentary democracies, where the executive and legislative are fused, so both responsive and responsible. While the public service can run the country they would lack legitimacy. Anyway, i’m just saying start with context and reality, as-it-is. For better or worse, fewer viable pathways remain.
@nolongerblocked6210 I doubt that's the case being that in day to day operations the typical person doesn't see a federal agent but has to pay them regardless. The amount of waste in the fed should infuriate anyone who is earning income or operating a small business.
No, it’s about corporate America and the rich to segregate themselves from the average person and write their own laws. As of now the rich and corporate America subordinate the average citizen financially, politically and legally. The courts and financial institutions already cause too much divisions in the population.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? No due process sounds as unconstitutional as it gets! Let an unelected agency take "other people's" assets, seems to be contradictory to 4th amendment, search and "seizure", no due process for citizens. What we really need is to remove or severely limit sovereign immunity from unelected functionaries that are all too eager to use their "authority" to take other people's assets without due process or a fair trial! Time to flip that script and hold the unelected functionaries accountable.
A President shouldn’t really have any power. We have a three branch system in America that checks and balances each other. These federal agencies that make up laws that we have to follow is ridiculous.
You said that a president shouldn't have any power and then mention the three branches having "checks and balances". How would the executive branch check any other branch if the president had no power? Who would you have make up all of the regulations for protecting our air and water, Congress? Just look at the clown show that is our House of Representatives right now.
Good. Unelected bureaucrats should not assume powers Congress never gave them or be used in partisan attacks by corrupt executives. And merit only appointments.Eg, the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the NARA,the Education Dept,the Agriculture Dept, etc,etc,etc.
The problem is simple, the fed agency writes the laws, fines the covered and if there is an objection decides whether its right or not, the govt checking the govt, the people lose!
What so many people miss is the article 6 gives you the right to a jury trial in CRIMINAL trails. This would be administrative/regulatory court. Just as their is also civil court. Furthermore, any entity could appeal a final order from any agency kicking it out of the administrative courts and into the court of appeals. On top of that, the administrative courts are still part of the independent judiciary and not the executive branch which oversees these agencies. It’s sad to see so many people grandstanding that have little to no understanding of how these two branches of government function.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extends these rights to state courts. The right to a fair trial extends to both civil and criminal proceedings.
So you don't like clean water, clean air, unpolluted rivers, streams & forests & you'd rather live in a full on corporate oligarchy like Russia/China where the elite or big businesses can do anything they want... _hard pass_
This is awful. Among many other things that would dramatically increase the cost of pursuing such things but it would also dramatically increase the cost of Defending them. Imagine having to defend yourself in federal court as compared to at an administrative procedure in front of a judge who is very familiar with the statutory framework. I would have liked more analysis as to the arguments against this an explanation of how impactful this would be to those who are not familiar with how these agencies work
This is just an end run around regulations that corporations don't want to abide by, this is just another attempt to strip away any oversight on the elite & rich & multinational corporations
It is very straightforward. The SEC has a history of leveling civil fines and collecting them just like the Mafia. The SEC creates the rules, interprets them and collects fines. Judge Jury and executioner. The unelected bureaucrats at the SEC create rules faster than any other agency and it doesn't need Congressional approval.
Regulations and laws have NO material distinction to a citizens IF they can be jailed..and or excessive fined or their rights restricted . So ONLY the legislator should be creating laws with THEIR name on it and not rely on deflection by their proxy the agencies
Um , the supreme court’s can limit what an agency can do , but there is a budget that they say they MUST use or loose it . Because the assumption is that the congress will lower their allocation in the next budget meeting if the agency doesn’t use it . The army has the same concern . Maybe that’s a good thing , maybe not . But $2000 for a toilet seat , is a bit much , don’t you think ?
"Does a federal agency have the authority to impose financial penalties without a jury trial?" NO. (unless we are supposed to be living in an authoritarian state operating without due process) It seems like there is just never an end to the unjustness able to be learned of in government...
@@nolongerblocked6210The question is if Congress had the power to pass those laws at all. If it injures our Constitutional rights, then no they don’t.
@@nolongerblocked6210congress should absolutely not be able to pass laws taking awat the right to a fair and impartial jury of your peers. That is a constitutional guarantee to prevent the government from abusing its powers against citizens.
Jury trials are only guaranteed fir CRIMINAL trials under article 6. Furthermore they could always appeal a final order the the court of appeals, kicking it out of the administrative courts. The misconception comes that anything illegal is considered criminal. Violating regulatory laws isn’t the same thing as violating criminal law, just like it’s not the same thing as civil violations
That's actually how it's supposed to work. The Legislative Branch creates the laws. The Executive Branch implements the laws. The Judicial Branch determines the constitutionality of the laws. The other two branches are expected to abide by the decisions of the Judiciary Branch. Despite recent court rulings, the Executive Branch is flagrantly ignoring the Scotus rulings, so here we are. Removing the ability of the executive branch to ignore the law is essential here.
No agency should have any power to do these things. We all deserve to have a jury trial period. These agencies think they are too powerful. We the people are in charge!
Imagine how many new clerks and judges we would need, and how dragged out the legal processes would be. I honestly think most of the federal agencies don't go after enough business because government workers would like a comfy job in the private sector. Opioid crisis proved this.
_Exactly!!_ This is nothing but an end run around oversight for the rich/elite & multinational corporations. Nothing good will come from this for the average citizen, this is all about the wealthy doing whatever they want. They don't like being told polluting our country is bad, they'd rather we had rivers the color of blood like they do in China & Russia. They don't wanna be told that they can't sell contaminated food or that safety matters with the products they're making. Our country is already ran by the corporations & the wealthy, if they strip away all oversight we'll be living in a corporate hellscape worse than it already is within a few years
Apparently you don't understand the structure of the government or the conflict of interest that this would be. The department of Justice helps enforce the laws and the supreme court adjudicates the law or judges the law Doesn't it make sense to have them separate so that you don't have the person who is investigating you also deciding you're guilty before you're done?
@@bobbybishop5662 I never said it was. But why are you calm when the government has grown too big, too powerful, far too corrupt and has clearly over stepped the boundaries of law way too many times ?
They are on a mission to dismantle all the laws and protections we have had for decades. I really hope the two old guys retire soon so we can replace them and fix this court before we're back in the 1800s
For those that are against this, imagine if you will your local state police changing the laws whenever they want to. But instead of laws, we will call them rules. Because laws are made by legislators. And at the drop of a hat, what was ok one day is all of a sudden changed the next, and you, as a law-abiding citizen, are caught up in this change. You see, this is happening today with our executive branch of government. It is happening in the fisheries industry, epa, and atf. Atf being the worse. They are changing definitions and classes of weapons, parts, to the point of making citizens felons for not complying with their rules, not laws but rules. Rules which change from day to day as they see fit...
The problem most people in the comment don’t seem to understand. Is that obviously the reason why Congress hasn’t even created guidance on these issues is that well obviously they haven’t been doing their job. When Congress can’t provide guidance on certain issues it is the job of the executives to change with the needs of the times basically moving with the times. So maybe we should be asking Congress on why we are having so much issues because they can’t even do their jobs and get legislation pass.
No the problem is not that. It's an out of control corrupt partisan executive using loopholes to assume powers never given them by the Legislative branch. And Congress can't act when Democrats block reforms. They blocked Carter and forstalled Trump. Both were proposing bureaucratic reforms. Carter was attacked by his own party.
Congress gave many agencies administrative authorities to enforce their laws so that there is no need to clog up the courts. This has been going on for decades, going back to 1800s.
And of course, anything SCOTUS can do to keep it’s owners happy will be done. The entire court is a disgraceful but accurate representation of our justice system.
So here's another question that needs to be answered: "Should US Citizens have to know every law on the books, local, state, and Federal, in order to keep from being bothered by the authorities, or should US Citizens only be held accountable to those laws that are commonly known about in the first place?" Not gonna argue that this guy didn't know not to commit fraud or anything - just posing a rather obvious question that never really gets dealt with, and needs to. As for this guy, yes, a jury trial is better, and should be every US Citizen's right, period. Not that I think jury selection and jury duty is done right: none of it is, but anyway, everyone being prosecuted under the law should have the right to not only request but upon request be automatically given a trial by jury. As for the rest, I dunno - I'm not a lawyer, and that's kind of the whole point of this comment. I don't think US Citizens should have to be our own lawyers in order to keep from dealing with the authorities in the first place. So long as we're not committing the most obvious, heinous crimes, we shouldn't be bothered at all. Anything else is just legal anarchy that makes more money for the lawyers and the courts, usually on the backs of the poor.
That's where a jury, especially in certain cases, could make a huge difference. I used to work filing Medicare claims. The regulations and restrictions are insane and constantly changing. If any company that does that gets audited, there's going to be mistakes found. If that could be shown to a jury, it could drastically reduce the fines which could mean the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt from them.
0:28 case to Supreme Court; three constitutional questions. SEC v Jarkesy - 2:45 7th amendment. Question. A civil suit of common law or a suit questioning statutory created public rights . - my question - what is one’s recourse, or rights, if one takes the position that the “statutory created public rights” are discriminatory in policy from the get go? - 3:20 nondelegation doctrine constitutional question. Administrative law judges employed by the federal agency (judge, jury, executioner) have the power to “rule” vs an individual having the right for a non-partial resolution via the courts (ie: the right to restitution, civil suit damages for a federal agencies unconstitutional, discriminatory or punitive actions standing behind the principle that these are the regulations the “monarch agency” has set. Can’t one have the right to question these regulations if one feels the regulation violate their rights?) - 4:49 unitary executive theory - dangerous precedent potential if this changes
So go to a trial and waste tax payers dollars he’s already was found that he violated the law and got fined instead of convicted in a court of law 🤔sounds like he’s reaching and just didn’t want to pay the fine.
The executive branch is supposed to be checked by the legislative branch. The administrative state is way to overreaching. You can't make laws in the executive branch. You are supposed to enforce them im the executive branch. The people we elect to run the government should be, and aren't, running the government. This is why the federal government needs to be cut back severely.
And it isn't a law if the legislature hasn't made it a law. It is a law by fiat made by the executive branch. Our constitution protects us when we follow and enforce it, it's about time we start holding representatives to account for their positions.
In the end it's going to boil down to giving more power to the next fascist president...if they can shoehorn him in again. Redressing the electotal college would be a better use of federal dollars, so we actually elect the supposed leaders.
Not only is the Federal Government massively overstepping their authorized powers, these lawsuits do not involve the actual victims in any way. The government sues a person or company for wronging an individual or individuals and then the government just keeps the money. Meaning the victims do not receive any compensation or justice. But the government benefits... how do we allow this???
Thank God! This country is in shambles because of unchecked government overreach. Repeal the Patriot act, set term limits and make the government work for and fear the people. Not the other way around!
The guest also skews the response when stating that the president can institute political judges.........but it also allows them to remove them as well. When they couldn't before.
She makes it sound like just because we are used to this crap that goes on now, that it should remain that way… I think it’s time to tear down what has been customary and usual, as far as the corruption and overreach!
The current situation is the federal government has an unelected bureaucracy which is not in the interest of a free people. Historically that is not the case. Congress has no legal authority over the President as the different branches are segregated to keep power balanced. The question seem to be if Congress has seized power from the other two branches. Calling these bureaucrats administration judges implies Congress intended to seize judicial power to the benefit of the executive branch. They should be called mediators instead. Words count in law. The decision of these mediators could still be appealed in federal court. Even if they are viewed as mediators it still sounds like judicial and not executive power.
If this is the case what is happening in New York regarding Trump and James? That judge ruled trump committed fraud without a jury!!! She just said “we are all entitled to a trial even in civil trial”!!!
His lawyers could've filed for a jury trial, they didn't. The judge did say later that even if they did file he still probably would've ruled on the case himself. It's a civil case, they're not the same as criminal cases in a million different ways. Why are you worried about a billionaire?? Worry about the people, not the elite
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
If the House and Senate didn't pass off the work and did their actual jobs, we wouldn't need agencies to handle these things. Force the House and Senate to actually put in a full workweek like every one else.
They have aides now, it will be worse if we passed this on to congresspeople
The judicial branch is extremely important. It is about balancing power. Removing checks and balances for the branches of government is extremely dangerous and a threat to our rights
YES!!
Uh, the legislative branches job is to create laws, the executives branches job is too enforce them. The problem is that whenever a leftist admin is in power, they give these agencies the greenlight to start creating laws. See ATF for more details
@@MultiNKnight True! Frankly, the government needs teeth. It needs to be able to chase wealthy businessmen with legal and financial harm, but Republicans (and Democrats TBH) hate getting caught red-handed so their trying to remove those teeth.
We cannot allow businessmen to run our government… lobbyists are horrible enough already 😞
At this point, even though they should limit them, there is no way they will let go of any kind of power. They are way too corrupt and authoritarian and will never let go.
The SCOTUS is not going to be limiting their own power IT would actually EXPAND SCOTUS power while limiting the admin state. SOOOO they will probably rule in GRANTING THEMSELVES MORE POWER!
Even reducing it will go a long way and save a lot of businesses that go bankrupt from just government fines. But it is true, the regulatory takeover of our elected government is complete, there's no going back. Unelected officials run the show from behind the scenes.
How ? If it's stripped away people will just laugh at them .
@@GiveMeaFuckingBreakDude Just like creating tougher gun laws doesn't lower shooting crimes....
Where would all that power go anyway?
Unelected bureaucrats should never determine laws, regulations or judgments
Federal judges are all appointed officials and not elected either.
Well said Sir
The Legislative Branch is in charge of writing laws and the Judicial Branch in charge of interpreting them. Those unelected bureaucrats you speak of are enacting/enforcing laws that Congress wrote. Retake Civics 101 and stop embarrassing America.
@@mdillinger2010 then why do the unelected bureaucrats enact regulations and enforce that congress hasn't legislated and passed smart guy?
@@mdillinger2010that I'd the way it is supposed to work. But it is not the way it is working at all.
One of the biggest issues we have in this country is the size and scope of government. Federal agencies need to be reigned in and government needs to be scaled down.
Massive downsizing.
This is about making corruption and fraud legal. You want more corruption and fraud?
The governments most important function was being a watchdog over big business and private interests. Now they have been corrupted and no longer represent the people. So basically the only cop we had has been compromised, that isnt a win for anyone except those who stand to profit from no cop. You think the market is going to police itself, look around to how we got to where we are was from eroding away government oversight and corrupting lawmakers.
Until there's a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, a flood or, God forbid, a 2008 Wall Street investment bank fiasco that threw the whole world into an economic tailspin. Everybody loves the government then. It's like that song from the Ghostbusters movie: Who ya gonna call?
@@makeit-takeit6707 "next time you need help, call a crackhead" -Sen. Kennedy
These agencies want absolute authority to do as they wish. Completely ignoring your constitutional rights.
Which is why the federal justice departments need to be reigned in. Judicial states should not have the power to imprison people against their will.
He committed fraud? So they fined him but not criminally? If they said he committed fraud it should have been sent to the DOJ.
Biden owns the alphabet departments, so no he won't be held accountable
But people have the right to appeal these decisions to court so as long as they have a right to appeal it to federal court I don't see what the problem is
@@soltantio AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You’d be surprised how many people are actually innocent. Not saying this is the case in this instance, but the doj is notoriously corrupt
@@soltantio An appeal also shouldn't take years and years until it gets dropped for those with enough money to delay it.
Giving any agency the power to side step due process is as unconstitutional as it gets .
Tell me you know nothing about administrative law without telling me you know nothing about administrative law
@@porthosduvallon5301Oh please, the mere EXISTENCE of some of these “federal” bureaucracies is unconstitutional by just plain sight!
@@porthosduvallon5301 We will see how they rule on it . I'm a retired attorney its my option the Seventh is being sidestepped.
As is obvious by this case going to court you have the right to a jury.
@@porthosduvallon5301You can't really blame the OP. Even lawyers and judges struggle with the Administrative Procedures Act and defining Article I judges.
It's a complex area of law that has arguably reach the attention of the high court because of the investment firms and individuals would prefer to litigate in federal court with a jury rather than before an administrative law judge.
There have been countless claims from social security and SSI claimant that would prefer to have their cases argued in federal court, but unless they have a constitutional claim, the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible to appeal a social security decision.
As someone who had to deal with a similar issue...I agree the defendant should be allowed to have a jury trial. Otherwise its a railroad situation as the non-jury trial is overseen by a biased federal fudge (often employed by the very same government entity that is prosecuting the person). .
All judges are employed by the same government prosecuting ppl. Jury trials are flawed as well, they aren’t fair as the jury can hide their bias to punish a defendant.
Ummm, no. Let’s use the trial of Trump as an example with only the best attorneys who decided he should just go with a judge’s decision. See, it’s not that difficult when you have the BEST attorneys.
Less gov control should always be the goal
🤪
Worker protections should always be a goal. Safe drinking water should always be a goal. Safe cars and buildings should always be our goal. Safe roads should always be the goal. Shall I continue? Would you trust me serving you food in a restaurant that no health inspector has checked to see if it is following safe practices? People like you aren't thinking about the ramifications of these things. You scream limited government, but thar limited government ONLY helps corporations make more money while making products that are less safe for us. Don't be a corporate hack and stand up for them.
@G.Markavis You do realize that the right-wingers don't care about deregulation for small businesses, right? This is deregulation for the 1%. This has been a corporate agenda for decades. Now, we have an extreme enough supreme court where it's coming true. They already gutted the Clean Water Act last year by telling the EPA they can't regulate waters adjacent to OUR DRINKING WATER. That means anyone can throw toxic waste into the rivers that we rely on for drinking water with impunity. Once again... it benefits only the 1% and their multi-billion dollar corporations. I suggest you look up the story about The Radium Girls. It started the fight for workers' rights. Look at what a corporation was doing to those women. All these people have died for us to get laws to protect us. Why is air travel so safe now when it wasn't in the past? REGULATION AGAINST GREED. You have to regulate these corporations as they have proven time and time again that without laws, they will always do the wrong thing and hurt people. Corporations need more regulations against them... not less. As far as the censorship thing. I don't know what you're talking about. Left-wingers used to try and cancel nonsense 10 years ago, and now right-wingers are trying to cancel and censor everything. The First Amendment says that the government can't censor your speech. A company can do it. Just like no shoes, no shirt, no service. Same concept.
@@G.Markavis this isn't about "more government" this is about oversight, nothing more. Do you like clean water to drink? How about safe food? Do you want the pharmaceutical industry to flood the streets with synthetic opiates? You wanna live in a country like China where there is no building safety codes? Where buildings just fall down bcuz the construction company wanted to save some money so they didn't put any rebar in the cheap concrete they used. Wake up!! This isn't for us!! This is for the rich & corporations to gain even more power & less oversight. You want Bill Gates to buy up all the farms in the country or Jeff Bezos & Walmart to own everything & turn the entire country into a gigantic monopoly they control?? I don't like the government anymore than the next person but these agencies serve a purpose & without oversight we'd be living in an even more dystopian nightmare
CONGRESS NEEDS TO DO THEIR JOB, THATS WHY WE PAY EACH OF THEM MORE THAN $75.000 A YEAR.
They get more than that in a month from special interests!
They get six figures a year with the greatest healthcare benefits....and their back room deals often make them millionaires
Who told you $75,000?
I wish it was only 75k. However we have a corrupt country and they get rich while "serving..."
They make about 174,000 a year. And yes, they need to be earning that paycheck-and lately, they are not.
No. Don't give a president the power to fire judges at will. It dents the idea of three SEPARATE branches of government!
Yikes. Don't throw out Administrative Law with the bath water, USSC. Mind the subtle distinction with common law.
Non-elected officials should not have any power to subvert the constitution. appointing others to do the job of a statesman is an admission of derelict of duty.
These agencies circumvent congress by issuing restrictive regulations that affect business, property, and personal rights.
Spot on! That's exactly what they do.
Yea, let's defend the poor billionaire hedge fund manager that is being accused of fraud.
More like Congress hasn’t been doing their job and instead of congressional official solving issues and passing legislations, they have mostly been grinding in a deadlock over the most simplest issue.
If Congress don’t start moving their butts and create new legislations the country would have an outdated system and a system that is slow to change of the time. Besides, Congress has passed less than 100 legislations during there four years so far and it is pretty embarrassing.
They probably have only passed 20 legislation.
This is just another attempt to give all the power to the rich/elite & corporations. They don't like oversight bcuz it cuts into their profits, this would be disastrous for the general public. Do you like clean water to fish in?? How about to drink?? Do you like food safety?? The rich want to strip away anyone standing against them & their every desire..
WAKE UP!! They always cloak their real desires in a shroud of "this will help the people" when in reality it'll only give even more power to the wealthy & multinational corporations to do anything they want
@@mdillinger2010it’s far more than that. Agencies give the feds the power to charge fines and penalties based on who’s in office and what their political agenda is. Let’s say Biden creates an agency called the Gender Affirmation Agency, and their sole purpose is to persecute those who don’t agree with trans rights. You mistakenly call a trans person by their born sex because they have yet to transition. The trans person complains to this new agency and the agency fines you thousands of dollars for committing a hate crime even though you have profusely apologized . That’s what’s at stake. The ability of your rights enshrined in the Constitution (the right to a fair trail by jury in this instance) to be upheld, not circumvented by a federal agency. This has been out of hand for decades and it’s time it came to a stop.
Oh no! Why would anybody want to limit the powers of our federal government!?
Because we don't want corporations ripping us off for one. So we don't get invaded for another. Then there's health care for old people, education subsidies, highways, bank insurance, air traffic control, keeping our ports and oceans safe, research and development.
@@Freeland-Farm lol, ok. I hope you become an adult one day.
Trump wants to expand the powers of the federal government. Look up Project 2025.
@@Freeland-Farm we're best friends!
What a way to spin this. The real issue is the federal alphabet agencies have been trying to make up regulations that our legislative branch has not passed into law. This has gone on for years and we're sick of it.
This was succinct and informative. Thank you 🙏.
The executive branch is supposed to be checked by the legislative branch. The administrative state is way to overreaching. You can't make laws in the executive branch. You are supposed to enforce them im the executive branch. The people we elect to run the government should be, and aren't, running the government. This is why the federal government needs to be cut back severely.
It’s a flawed design, because as you describe it, it is biased towards inaction (which is a policy agenda). Without passing normative judging judgement, there are functional requirements. A small state was fine from the 17-19 centuries. The enormous complexity, and concomitant risks, of modern economies, require dedicated experts and administration. To be effective, the state needs to have sufficient resources, expertise, and competence in relation to the market - and honestly it been coming up short for decades. Modern problems are often coordination dilemmas, which is literally what governance can solve. But that doesn’t mean accountability is not possible - look at parliamentary democracies, where the executive and legislative are fused, so both responsive and responsible. While the public service can run the country they would lack legitimacy. Anyway, i’m just saying start with context and reality, as-it-is. For better or worse, fewer viable pathways remain.
Yes
This is very simple, if there's less oversight that will not benefit the people... it'll only benefit the rich/elite & corporations
@nolongerblocked6210 I doubt that's the case being that in day to day operations the typical person doesn't see a federal agent but has to pay them regardless. The amount of waste in the fed should infuriate anyone who is earning income or operating a small business.
No, it’s about corporate America and the rich to segregate themselves from the average person and write their own laws. As of now the rich and corporate America subordinate the average citizen financially, politically and legally. The courts and financial institutions already cause too much divisions in the population.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? No due process sounds as unconstitutional as it gets! Let an unelected agency take "other people's" assets, seems to be contradictory to 4th amendment, search and "seizure", no due process for citizens. What we really need is to remove or severely limit sovereign immunity from unelected functionaries that are all too eager to use their "authority" to take other people's assets without due process or a fair trial! Time to flip that script and hold the unelected functionaries accountable.
Very true. Removing any oversight and regulation of them will be harmful to the American public
How about strip ATF and FBI of their unconstitutional overreach
If your accused of a crime you should be able to plead your case among your peers at trial.
A President shouldn’t really have any power. We have a three branch system in America that checks and balances each other. These federal agencies that make up laws that we have to follow is ridiculous.
You said that a president shouldn't have any power and then mention the three branches having "checks and balances". How would the executive branch check any other branch if the president had no power? Who would you have make up all of the regulations for protecting our air and water, Congress? Just look at the clown show that is our House of Representatives right now.
Makes sense there should be a trial
Beautiful thing and it's called limiting the power of government over the people
You mean hedge fund billionaires.
Good. Unelected bureaucrats should not assume powers Congress never gave them or be used in partisan attacks by corrupt executives. And merit only appointments.Eg, the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the NARA,the Education Dept,the Agriculture Dept, etc,etc,etc.
Judge, jury, evidence validator, and executioner?
No thanks.
The problem is simple, the fed agency writes the laws, fines the covered and if there is an objection decides whether its right or not, the govt checking the govt, the people lose!
Can someone please site the case, so I can follow it later?
SCOTUS BLOG
SEC vs Jarkesy
What so many people miss is the article 6 gives you the right to a jury trial in CRIMINAL trails. This would be administrative/regulatory court. Just as their is also civil court. Furthermore, any entity could appeal a final order from any agency kicking it out of the administrative courts and into the court of appeals. On top of that, the administrative courts are still part of the independent judiciary and not the executive branch which oversees these agencies. It’s sad to see so many people grandstanding that have little to no understanding of how these two branches of government function.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extends these rights to state courts. The right to a fair trial extends to both civil and criminal proceedings.
Next case please
All the federal agencies must be defunded immediately.
So you don't like clean water, clean air, unpolluted rivers, streams & forests & you'd rather live in a full on corporate oligarchy like Russia/China where the elite or big businesses can do anything they want... _hard pass_
Starting with the Department of Defense! Our biggest source of misappropriation
This is awful. Among many other things that would dramatically increase the cost of pursuing such things but it would also dramatically increase the cost of Defending them. Imagine having to defend yourself in federal court as compared to at an administrative procedure in front of a judge who is very familiar with the statutory framework. I would have liked more analysis as to the arguments against this an explanation of how impactful this would be to those who are not familiar with how these agencies work
If it's a state crime it'll be a judge and jury anyway. I need to watch the video before I comment further
This is just an end run around regulations that corporations don't want to abide by, this is just another attempt to strip away any oversight on the elite & rich & multinational corporations
It is very straightforward. The SEC has a history of leveling civil fines and collecting them just like the Mafia. The SEC creates the rules, interprets them and collects fines. Judge Jury and executioner. The unelected bureaucrats at the SEC create rules faster than any other agency and it doesn't need Congressional approval.
The start of this was in 74. This is hopefully to break that.
Somebody didn't listen to the video. It's about the accused having the choice which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thats awesome. 👌
These agencies usrp the power and authority vested with our Congress and ONLY our congress
Regulations and laws have NO material distinction to a citizens IF they can be jailed..and or excessive fined or their rights restricted . So ONLY the legislator should be creating laws with THEIR name on it and not rely on deflection by their proxy the agencies
Um , the supreme court’s can limit what an agency can do , but there is a budget that they say they MUST use or loose it . Because the assumption is that the congress will lower their allocation in the next budget meeting if the agency doesn’t use it .
The army has the same concern .
Maybe that’s a good thing , maybe not . But $2000 for a toilet seat , is a bit much , don’t you think ?
Heaven forbid we spend less money
Ya , really .
Having served in the militia, that was their filosophy . And it’s like what !?
I couldn’t believe they said that .@@yurimodin7333
"Does a federal agency have the authority to impose financial penalties without a jury trial?" NO. (unless we are supposed to be living in an authoritarian state operating without due process)
It seems like there is just never an end to the unjustness able to be learned of in government...
Yes they do, if Congress has passed a laws granting them oversight
@@nolongerblocked6210The question is if Congress had the power to pass those laws at all. If it injures our Constitutional rights, then no they don’t.
@@nolongerblocked6210congress should absolutely not be able to pass laws taking awat the right to a fair and impartial jury of your peers. That is a constitutional guarantee to prevent the government from abusing its powers against citizens.
What is bail
Jury trials are only guaranteed fir CRIMINAL trials under article 6. Furthermore they could always appeal a final order the the court of appeals, kicking it out of the administrative courts. The misconception comes that anything illegal is considered criminal. Violating regulatory laws isn’t the same thing as violating criminal law, just like it’s not the same thing as civil violations
We need to disband the ATF, Dept. of Education and move the Coast Guard back to the Department of Defense.
Ah yes, the government thought it would be cute, to have the government ask the government if it should limit the governments powers.
That's actually how it's supposed to work.
The Legislative Branch creates the laws.
The Executive Branch implements the laws.
The Judicial Branch determines the constitutionality of the laws.
The other two branches are expected to abide by the decisions of the Judiciary Branch. Despite recent court rulings, the Executive Branch is flagrantly ignoring the Scotus rulings, so here we are. Removing the ability of the executive branch to ignore the law is essential here.
Tell me you failed your high school government class without telling you failed it
Hopefully the court rules they cannot and all of these BS agencies are made useless. If we're really lucky, most of them will be disbanded.
A few of these judges have qualifications issues, I don’t have confidence in this court anymore. I don’t respect this court.
And you shouldn't, they have shown they are not interested in ethical behavior.
No agency should have any power to do these things. We all deserve to have a jury trial period. These agencies think they are too powerful. We the people are in charge!
Vivek was on point with his tirade on the shadow government. It's about time the Supreme Court takes this one on
Imagine how many new clerks and judges we would need, and how dragged out the legal processes would be. I honestly think most of the federal agencies don't go after enough business because government workers would like a comfy job in the private sector. Opioid crisis proved this.
_Exactly!!_ This is nothing but an end run around oversight for the rich/elite & multinational corporations. Nothing good will come from this for the average citizen, this is all about the wealthy doing whatever they want. They don't like being told polluting our country is bad, they'd rather we had rivers the color of blood like they do in China & Russia. They don't wanna be told that they can't sell contaminated food or that safety matters with the products they're making. Our country is already ran by the corporations & the wealthy, if they strip away all oversight we'll be living in a corporate hellscape worse than it already is within a few years
Spoken like a true Progressive authoritarian.
Hey let's give the federal govt more power over the people.
I'm sure that'll turn out well.
Clown giving unelected bureaucrats more power are you sure you don’t work for the cabal.
I wish the Doj was under the supreme Court instead of part of the executive branch
Apparently you don't understand the structure of the government or the conflict of interest that this would be.
The department of Justice helps enforce the laws and the supreme court adjudicates the law or judges the law
Doesn't it make sense to have them separate so that you don't have the person who is investigating you also deciding you're guilty before you're done?
The founding fathers granted us the 2nd amendment right for this reason
Not everything is about the 2nd , calm down.
@@bobbybishop5662 I never said it was. But why are you calm when the government has grown too big, too powerful, far too corrupt and has clearly over stepped the boundaries of law way too many times ?
It's about dam time!! God bless America 🇺🇸
R u effing kidding me right now? Who needs safe water?
They are on a mission to dismantle all the laws and protections we have had for decades. I really hope the two old guys retire soon so we can replace them and fix this court before we're back in the 1800s
That's exactly their goal!! Give all the power to the wealthy and corporations with no oversight... this is some seriously dystopian sht
So we're about to find out what the yacht club has paid them to rule.
“Noo people with more money then me can’t have rights!”
Perfect get government out of everything
ESPECIALLY the Department of IN-Justice…
For those that are against this, imagine if you will your local state police changing the laws whenever they want to. But instead of laws, we will call them rules. Because laws are made by legislators. And at the drop of a hat, what was ok one day is all of a sudden changed the next, and you, as a law-abiding citizen, are caught up in this change.
You see, this is happening today with our executive branch of government. It is happening in the fisheries industry, epa, and atf. Atf being the worse. They are changing definitions and classes of weapons, parts, to the point of making citizens felons for not complying with their rules, not laws but rules. Rules which change from day to day as they see fit...
The problem most people in the comment don’t seem to understand. Is that obviously the reason why Congress hasn’t even created guidance on these issues is that well obviously they haven’t been doing their job.
When Congress can’t provide guidance on certain issues it is the job of the executives to change with the needs of the times basically moving with the times. So maybe we should be asking Congress on why we are having so much issues because they can’t even do their jobs and get legislation pass.
It's led by Republicans. What have they actually done since their majority control.
No the problem is not that. It's an out of control corrupt partisan executive using loopholes to assume powers never given them by the Legislative branch. And Congress can't act when Democrats block reforms. They blocked Carter and forstalled Trump. Both were proposing bureaucratic reforms. Carter was attacked by his own party.
Good reporting and actually kept the conversation neutral and blaming a party or person that refreshing
My thing is when the SEC Levi's finds and penalties. It's almost like they're taking a cut of what the prophet was like. The mob boss did
It then also gives civil plaintiffs strong evidence of the wrong doing committed by the person or business that committed the fraud.
Congress gave many agencies administrative authorities to enforce their laws so that there is no need to clog up the courts. This has been going on for decades, going back to 1800s.
And it's out of control and was never right
It was also beneficial for congress to delegate to these agencies so they could dodge criticism when they go back home
Just because it’s been going on for a long time doesn’t make it right... Slavery was legal for thousands of years.
And of course, anything SCOTUS can do to keep it’s owners happy will be done. The entire court is a disgraceful but accurate representation of our justice system.
Does this affect the state agencies too through the 14th?
Good. Federal agencies have WAY too much power. Give it back to the people.
This is great news!
So here's another question that needs to be answered: "Should US Citizens have to know every law on the books, local, state, and Federal, in order to keep from being bothered by the authorities, or should US Citizens only be held accountable to those laws that are commonly known about in the first place?" Not gonna argue that this guy didn't know not to commit fraud or anything - just posing a rather obvious question that never really gets dealt with, and needs to. As for this guy, yes, a jury trial is better, and should be every US Citizen's right, period. Not that I think jury selection and jury duty is done right: none of it is, but anyway, everyone being prosecuted under the law should have the right to not only request but upon request be automatically given a trial by jury. As for the rest, I dunno - I'm not a lawyer, and that's kind of the whole point of this comment. I don't think US Citizens should have to be our own lawyers in order to keep from dealing with the authorities in the first place. So long as we're not committing the most obvious, heinous crimes, we shouldn't be bothered at all. Anything else is just legal anarchy that makes more money for the lawyers and the courts, usually on the backs of the poor.
5:56 You are responsible for knowing whether your actions break a law or statute. When in doubt, find out beforehand.
That's where a jury, especially in certain cases, could make a huge difference. I used to work filing Medicare claims. The regulations and restrictions are insane and constantly changing. If any company that does that gets audited, there's going to be mistakes found. If that could be shown to a jury, it could drastically reduce the fines which could mean the difference between staying in business or going bankrupt from them.
We need to abolish most federal agencies.
Get rid of all unaccountable agencies.
Agencies should have zero power to enact regulations with the force of de facto law. Agencies should exist only to enforce signed laws.
This case is a MEGA case. If the court does its job, all that idiocy will end.
Federal agencies have been skirting due process for decades.
The ATF needs to be reined in mostly. And by reined in, I mean abolished.
Apparently we learned nothing from the Great Depression
0:28 case to Supreme Court; three constitutional questions. SEC v Jarkesy - 2:45 7th amendment. Question. A civil suit of common law or a suit questioning statutory created public rights . - my question - what is one’s recourse, or rights, if one takes the position that the “statutory created public rights” are discriminatory in policy from the get go? - 3:20 nondelegation doctrine constitutional question. Administrative law judges employed by the federal agency (judge, jury, executioner) have the power to “rule” vs an individual having the right for a non-partial resolution via the courts (ie: the right to restitution, civil suit damages for a federal agencies unconstitutional, discriminatory or punitive actions standing behind the principle that these are the regulations the “monarch agency” has set. Can’t one have the right to question these regulations if one feels the regulation violate their rights?) - 4:49 unitary executive theory - dangerous precedent potential if this changes
Nothing to hear, its the constitution.
So go to a trial and waste tax payers dollars he’s already was found that he violated the law and got fined instead of convicted in a court of law 🤔sounds like he’s reaching and just didn’t want to pay the fine.
The executive branch is supposed to be checked by the legislative branch. The administrative state is way to overreaching. You can't make laws in the executive branch. You are supposed to enforce them im the executive branch. The people we elect to run the government should be, and aren't, running the government. This is why the federal government needs to be cut back severely.
And it isn't a law if the legislature hasn't made it a law. It is a law by fiat made by the executive branch. Our constitution protects us when we follow and enforce it, it's about time we start holding representatives to account for their positions.
So by your logic federal agencies can create laws.
One more step towards keeping those in power unaccountable
This is a turning point.
Please God save us from federal agencies .
No!
They 100% need to reign in government agencies. They have run a muck since 2001!
In the end it's going to boil down to giving more power to the next fascist president...if they can shoehorn him in again. Redressing the electotal college would be a better use of federal dollars, so we actually elect the supposed leaders.
No checks and balances for the powerful.
Thats what we have now, federal agencies enforce corporate lobbied legislation
Not only is the Federal Government massively overstepping their authorized powers, these lawsuits do not involve the actual victims in any way. The government sues a person or company for wronging an individual or individuals and then the government just keeps the money. Meaning the victims do not receive any compensation or justice. But the government benefits... how do we allow this???
When it comes to the government; less is more.
Until Trump gets back into office.
YES, COME ON. DO IT
The letter agencies should be abolished and Congress should make specific rules keeping closely in mind how their constituents might view the laws.
Good.
I never elected a "federal agency".
Thank God! This country is in shambles because of unchecked government overreach. Repeal the Patriot act, set term limits and make the government work for and fear the people. Not the other way around!
That would be awesome
Good! Federal agencies already have way too much self given power.
All government needs to be rained in.
The guest also skews the response when stating that the president can institute political judges.........but it also allows them to remove them as well. When they couldn't before.
She makes it sound like just because we are used to this crap that goes on now, that it should remain that way… I think it’s time to tear down what has been customary and usual, as far as the corruption and overreach!
It's checks ans balances, not check and mate
Abolish the atf
No president should be able to hire or fire Federal employees!
That’s literally why they are elected
Good
Because the founding fathers never wanted the government to be more powerful then the people
The current situation is the federal government has an unelected bureaucracy which is not in the interest of a free people. Historically that is not the case. Congress has no legal authority over the President as the different branches are segregated to keep power balanced. The question seem to be if Congress has seized power from the other two branches.
Calling these bureaucrats administration judges implies Congress intended to seize judicial power to the benefit of the executive branch. They should be called mediators instead. Words count in law. The decision of these mediators could still be appealed in federal court. Even if they are viewed as mediators it still sounds like judicial and not executive power.
Limiting the power of federal agencies will only help the American people.
NEVER reward a Republican with your vote.
If this is the case what is happening in New York regarding Trump and James? That judge ruled trump committed fraud without a jury!!! She just said “we are all entitled to a trial even in civil trial”!!!
His lawyers could've filed for a jury trial, they didn't. The judge did say later that even if they did file he still probably would've ruled on the case himself. It's a civil case, they're not the same as criminal cases in a million different ways. Why are you worried about a billionaire?? Worry about the people, not the elite
Trump civil case is in New York State court, not federal court
This is VERY DANGEROUS Presidents already have too much power. I hope this does not happen
After listening to all of it…Sounds like a good idea to get it back to the Constitutional plan.
bout time
Abolish the ATF via the 2nd Amendment