The Federalists could imagine not have the dimensions of the administrative state two centuries later, but had they been able to, they would likely have comprehended the dangers to the stability of American society if, as Greg puts it in an earlier post, the meaning of regulatory statutes is left to the interpretation of the president and the flunkies that he appoints.
Hamilton certainly would have been aghast at the economic consequences.
I just don’t think the test of constitutional interpretation should be who sits in the Oval Office. If you think SCOTUS should decide cases based on whether Harris (or simply “not Trump”) or Trump sits there, I think you’ve got it all wrong.
Exactly. If the Constitution is still meaningful (I'm with Lysander Spooner on that question, but IF), whether one likes a particular president or not should be irrelevant to its application.
The Federalists could imagine not have the dimensions of the administrative state two centuries later, but had they been able to, they would likely have comprehended the dangers to the stability of American society if, as Greg puts it in an earlier post, the meaning of regulatory statutes is left to the interpretation of the president and the flunkies that he appoints.
Hamilton certainly would have been aghast at the economic consequences.
I just don’t think the test of constitutional interpretation should be who sits in the Oval Office. If you think SCOTUS should decide cases based on whether Harris (or simply “not Trump”) or Trump sits there, I think you’ve got it all wrong.
Exactly. If the Constitution is still meaningful (I'm with Lysander Spooner on that question, but IF), whether one likes a particular president or not should be irrelevant to its application.