Hacker News Reader

Comment by earthboundkid | Hacker News Reader

If there's ambiguity, the Supreme Court should defer to the executive and let Congress pass a new law if they disagree. It doesn't make sense for the tie to go to inaction. We elect Presidents exactly so they can steer the executive in the direction we like! Requiring all three branches to agree (Congress passes the law, Executive actually does it, Court says it's okay) is a recipe for national paralysis.

View on HN

No. That's not how it's supposed to work. Without delegation (which has happened), the presidency (and Executive branch broadly) is constrained by the Constitution, the laws set by Congress, international treaties (consequence of the Constitution), and restricted by the interpretation and judgement of the courts. If there's ambiguity the Executive can make their own call, they don't have to sit and wait, but they can then be challenged in the courts and have to stop acting in a manner judged inconsistent with the law, constitution, and treaties.

If it's truly a matter of ambiguity then the court is not adjudicating an inconsistency, it is inserting is own judgement about what the other party (Congress) said - when the other party has the ability to assert its intentions directly.

Yes, Congress can solve this buy doing their job and passing a law to clarify the fact. The fact they don't demonstrates the dysfunction in the US, and the craziness that everyone thinks they can get the executive branch to do an end run around the constitution.

How does the concept of “checks and balances” fit into your view? I ask because, as sibling commenter points out, that’s just not how the Constitution says it works.

You could get a very reasonable answer to your question by reading Chevron or the dissents of Loper.

That is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not mention judicial review at all. Since it's ambiguous, it must be unconstitutional; therefore the Supreme Court must stop doing it. This is the same logic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com