E53 Steven Croskey (Lawyer) Reclaiming Balance: Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on the Chevron Doctrine and Federal Agency Power Limitations

Is the balance of power in the U.S. government shifting? Constitutional lawyer Steve Croskey joins us to dissect the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning the Chevron Doctrine, a pivotal decision reshaping the landscape of federal agency power. Discover how this landmark ruling aims to restore the separation of powers and reassert judicial oversight, challenging decades of regulatory overreach that has affected everything from gas can nozzles to firearms regulations.

Through vivid real-world examples, we unravel the complex web of agency authority that has grown since the 1980s, spotlighting how entities like the EPA and OSHA have expanded their reach into our daily lives. From TSA regulations to OSHA's COVID-19 mandates, our discussion reveals the personal and practical implications of unchecked agency power, portraying a system where unelected officials wield disproportionate control. The Supreme Court's recent decision marks a monumental shift towards rebalancing this power, ensuring that individual liberties are safeguarded against bureaucratic micromanagement.

This episode is sponsored by Grunt Style, a lifestyle brand whose mission is to bring patriotic apparel to every home in America. Use code RICH15 when you order and receive 15% off!

Chapters

• 0:10 Supreme Court Ruling and Constitutional Rights
• 8:29 Government Agencies and Tyranny
• 15:42 Expansion of Agency Powers and Regulations
• 21:20 TSA Regulations and Overreach
• 29:15 Agency Powers and Regulations
• 33:31 Agency Power and Interpretation Issues
• 45:08 Bureaucracy and Agency Power
• 52:27 Supreme Court vs Agency Expertise
• 56:03 Agency Overreach and Tyranny
• 1:05:47 Delegation Doctrine and Agency Oversight
• 1:19:20 Agency Power and Judicial Oversight
• 1:34:54 Power of Persuasion vs. Control
• 1:43:35 Government Power and Erosion of Rights
• 1:52:49 Government Agency Abuse and Control
• 2:05:07 Government Agencies and Power Control

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:10

The world can be a very dangerous place and we never know when an emergency is going to unfold. But if one does, will you know how to handle yourself? If you're not sure, you're already behind the power curve, and that is why I created Full Spectrum Warriors. Hey guys, welcome to the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast. My name is Rich Graham and today I am joined by Steve Krosky, constitutional lawyer, and we are going to cover the Chevron Act and what this Supreme Court ruling means for our fight against tyranny here within the country. Once again, the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast is sponsored by Grunt Style, the American apparel brand, so check them out and let's jump right into this hot topic. Steve, welcome back to the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast.

Speaker 2: 1:03

Thank you again for having me.

Speaker 1: 1:04

Good to have you Some big time things to talk about, some big developments since the last time we spoke are happening within the government and the rulings with the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2: 1:15

Absolutely yeah, for sure.

Speaker 1: 1:17

So when we were talking off camera, microphone, whatever you want to call it one of the things we were talking about and we'll get into this more was discussing what actually defines tyranny. And it's really interesting because we're here on July 5th Yesterday was our Independence Day and everyone's like America. You know, home of the free because of the brave. You know freedom isn't free. Home of the free because of the brave. You know freedom isn't free. You know all the thousands of American pride slogans, right.

Speaker 1: 1:52

But then you still talk to people and on the flip side of all this stuff of America is the freest country in the world and the best country in the world.

Speaker 1: 2:00

You start talking to a lot of people and they understand that America isn't really free and we're not really free. And you have a lot of people talking about how we're enslaved to debt and we're enslaved to taxes and there are so many rules and regulations and the government is just micromanaging every little tiny aspect of our lives. People getting together yesterday for 4th of July celebrations are using gas cans to fill up their lawnmower right, and the gas cans have to have specific nozzles on them and these nozzles change every couple of years to meet safety requirements because you're too much of an idiot to be able to use a normal gas nozzle to fill up a freaking lawnmower. And then, oh, by the way, the lawnmower you're using you know that should probably be electric and not gas powered anymore, because you know there's new regulations on. You know which type of lawnmower you can use and the food the hot dogs and the hamburgers have to be handled and packaged and processed in a certain way. There's certain regulations that go with that.

Speaker 2: 3:13

Or the fireworks are shooting and the fireworks.

Speaker 1: 3:15

And oh, by the way, you know the bread and the sugar and all this stuff that you're using needs to have. You know, a priority is set to high fructose corn syrup or soy oils or whatever. You know what I mean. Every single little piece of this stuff is being micromanaged. And, uh, there's government agencies that have been put in place that are not following the Constitution, as we talked about in the previous episodes.

Speaker 1: 3:47

But in regards to the Second Amendment and how the ATF was trying to create rules and then create penalties or taxes for specific features that you want on a firearm and what the penalties would be, and they're basically self-regulating, and we spoke about how that, if you go back far enough, that's not really constitutional.

Speaker 1: 4:11

But here we are and, uh, recently, and I'm excited to talk to you about this the supreme court saw the chevron case and basically overthrew and found this to be unconstitutional, which just basically stripped this huge tyrannical, really a fourth branch of government that had been created not too long ago, and I know you're going to get into that, but I just think it's a very fitting conversation for the 4th of July weekend, considering that there's literally wars, there's revolutions that take place to rein back the oppression of a government that we just had happen through this Supreme Court ruling without a single shot being fired, and I don't think that the american people understand how big of a decision this was and how much this actually means as far as our rights and our liberties, as they were originally entrusted to us through the powers of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Speaker 2: 5:24

In regards to what has occurred over the last 40 years, yeah, no, that's a great way of putting it and it's a, it's a. It's a really fascinating thing to see. One, you know, as an american, uh, but two as a constitutionalist, and and an attorney myself, right, and know I know we've gone into this in some of the other podcasts. I like to. It's easy to just say the year 1984, right. But I like to slow down and really kind of pull that out, like what does that mean, right? 1984. Well, if you were born in 1984, right now you'd be 40 years old, right? Well, okay, say you were born 1983, and you were one year old at the time, in 1984. Do you really know how the government functions when you're a one-year-old? No, absolutely not, right, you probably don't really understand, and or at least not even understand, but start having a lot of governmental regulations start affecting your life until probably your teenage years, right? Maybe 14, 15 years old, plus or minus, depending on your circumstances.

Speaker 2: 6:29

So it's pretty fair to say that if you were born before 1985, you probably don't know any better than how Chevron affected everyone's lives and how it not necessarily affected everyone's lives, but it was the catalyst and the pivot point really in American democracy, or at least for how the way our government was found up with the three you know, originally founded with the three branches of government. It was that tremendous pivot away from how things were originally set up, right? So I'd like to first start explaining what the Chevron Doctrine is, right? First off, it's an old Supreme Court case from 1984, meaning that the Supreme Court of the United States at that time specifically had this issue in interpretations of silent or ambiguous statutes, even if the court would have interpreted the silent or ambiguous statute in another way. So, in essence, in 1984, the stage was set for agencies to have the power to create law, enforce law and interpret law all under the same roof.

Speaker 2: 7:48

Now let's go back. I know we like tying everything back to the founding fathers, right? Everyone likes to do that. And what does that mean, right? Well, let's look at what James Madison specifically wrote and stated. He wrote that the accumulation of all powers the legislative, that the accumulation of all powers the legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced, the very definition of tyranny.

Speaker 1: 8:29

So that's where I'm saying we've literally been living in tyranny and most people don't even realize it. And I would say literally, if you were born around 1970 or maybe in the late 60s, you wouldn't truly understand this what the government was supposed to be operating like. Because you're too young, like you were saying, like in 1984, you would know really, unless you were born after like 1966, because a 15 year old doesn't really understand fair enough that you you're.

Speaker 1: 8:56

You're not living an adult life yet you're not having to deal with all these regulations, taxes. Try to run a business, try to buy a home, build something. You know what I mean. Run mean Run a company, so you're not actually engaging in all of these things. You're just kind of living your life and you got some rules about you, but you don't really truly understand what it is you're encountering yet.

Speaker 2: 9:21

Yeah. So let's talk about agencies for a second Right. And what are they? Right, I mean, that's, that's.

Speaker 2: 9:27

I know we keep saying this, we brush over it and not to talk to you like you're stupid, but obviously and I think every school to this day still teaches this that our government was founded with three separate branches. I think everyone agrees on that, right, you got the executive branch, which is the branch that is specifically tasked with enforcing the law. Right, that's like your sheriff's department, that's your governor, that's your president. All of that flows from the executive powers. The executive branch right, that's branch one. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the most important branch by label number one, but in other events, the second branch is the legislative branch. Right, that's the branch that creates the laws. Right, they're the ones that say we decide that blah, blah, blah, whatever, blah, blah, blah means that's going to be the law. Right. Now, the executive I'm sorry, the legislative doesn't get to enforce the law and they don't get to interpret it, they just get to create it. Okay, now there's the third branch. There's the judiciary. The judiciary is specifically tasked with, well, a lot of things, but, in a nutshell, interpreting the law when it's vague. Right? So you got these three different laws. They're all under separate roofs and they all should, in theory, keep each other in check. That way and again, the way we're set up in America is everything stems from one, the people which created the Constitution. And then the Constitution is the parameter, at least in theory. I know it doesn't work like this in the real world anymore, but in theory that's the parameter for what the government is allowed to operate inside of, right? Well, now, when you have Chevron, that specific Supreme Court allowed that. Well, one. Let me back up.

Speaker 2: 11:14

At that point in time, the legislature there was a phenomenon, right. So and I'll get into this in a second and this will make sense contextually but the legislative branch was already, we'll say, overwhelmed at the time is probably the best way of putting it and they would be like okay, well, we're whatever 200 people we meet every so often there's a rapid fire amount of stuff that's coming our way we need to deal with. We don't have time to deal with this. So we're going to delegate our authority on this specific issue. Right, let's pick air. Right, let's pick the environment.

Speaker 2: 11:51

For a second, right, you know they'll be like we're going to delegate to the EPA the ability to regulate the environment, and we'll let them study it, we'll let them figure it out and they're going to write regulations about what applies to the environment. Okay, well, agencies are already a part of the executive branch, so the legislature is kicking the can over to the agency at that point by delegation, saying you guys make the law and you enforce it. On this specific topic, chevron went a step further and said specifically that courts shall now also defer to agencies whenever an agency decides to interpret an ambiguous statute or a silent statute. Well, statutes aren't silent, but if the legislative branch didn't address a specific issue, chevron allowed that agency to interpret that silence and or ambiguity however they wanted.

Speaker 1: 12:56

And that's interesting because, again going back to the constitution, the constitution said the opposite of we're going to list the things that the federal government can do, and if it's not written in that then you don't have authority over it exactly the 10th amendment, right yeah?

Speaker 1: 13:13

so that was like. This is a exact opposite of like you had with the constitution, the bill of rights. You had a limited government and now, with this uh ruling in 1984, that basically said the the government has the ability to assert its authority however it sees fit, you know. And it's not limited anymore. In fact, it's all encompassing. And now again, the separation of those branches. Now you've taken all of those branches and put them underneath one appointed person, and no one ever voted on this person. This is just you.

Speaker 2: 13:57

You have no say in this whatsoever and according to james madison, uh and and I think a lot of people agree with this that is the very definition of tyranny.

Speaker 1: 14:05

Yeah, so now you have like a mini dictator, and maybe they're not controlling every aspect of your life, but you have a mini dictator, this little mini tyrant, who now has complete authority over a specific category, and they get to write their own laws, they get to enforce it, they get to tell it, they get to tell you what the penalties are, how much money you have to pay in fees, fines, whatever, and then they get to, they get to regulate it.

Speaker 2: 14:31

And they get to establish the procedures on how to challenge it or the lack thereof of procedures on how to challenge it, and they get to decide themselves if they screwed up on the bottom level of what you're challenging. They're kind of like their own judge, jury, executioner, fact finder all under one roof and what happens here? Right? So let's read the 10th Amendment for a second. Right back to this, because I want to lay this, because this is important throughout today's episode and all the episodes we've talked about, but I know I think we've harped on this in some of the other episodes.

Speaker 2: 15:05

But the 10th Amendment specifically states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. Okay, and inherently in that, the only way that you can delegate powers to the United States is one if you have them yourself, right? So if originally the people had the power and they're the ones that delegated certain powers to the United States government through the Constitution, and it says if it wasn't given to the government, the people still have it, right? Now let's go to Chevron, chevron specifically. So inherently, if the people were silent and if it wasn't expressly given to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment is clear the federal government does not have that power. Silence does not transfer power. According to the 10th Amendment. Chevron doesn't necessarily specifically say that, but what it says is that agencies now have the power to interpret silence or ambiguities.

Speaker 1: 16:12

Which that goes against, even like from your general legal parameters. If I have the right to remain silent if there's charges or something brought against me or if a police officer wants to arrest me for something, someone thinks I committed a crime, I have the right to remain silent and my silence does not make me guilty. You can't assume or assert that I committed a crime because I say I'm going to use my Fifth Amendment right, and I'd like to speak to my lawyer. So that's been from the very, very beginning of our governmental structure and your rights as an individual.

Speaker 2: 16:59

And now they're basically taking that aspect of what is understood practice, understood rights, understood law, and they're flipping it on their head and saying, oh well, in the absence of speech, we get to determine what the absence of that speech thus says yep, and and I would, I would like to you know one point out that, um, what we see a lot, or what what we've noticed happened over the last 40 years since chevron is a lot of these agencies will use chevron uh, and their powers from it, not not, I don't know if they knew they were using it specifically, but it just kind of morphed into this where, if the legislative branch specifically says we're going to task the EPA to maintain the environment and figure out what's best for the environment, well, a lot of the times, if the EPA will be looking at something and be like, well, we want to do these certain things, like gas cans, right, like the, you brought up the gas cans earlier you know, was that specific authority delegated to them by the legislator?

Speaker 2: 18:14

Probably not. You know, I I don't. I don't know the EPA that well but and we'll get into specific examples here in a second that apply a little bit more but now the these, these agencies, if they were never specifically delegated a task through the legislation, they're allowed to interpret that silence however they want. So what? What a lot of times we saw was is if, if they were confused about what their powers were, or if they were confused about what a statute may or may not have delegated to them, all inferences got resolved in favor of the agency yeah, that's, that's crazy and it allowed them to just grab a tremendous amount of power but.

Speaker 1: 18:56

But a lot of people would be like how in the world did we go from being the most free country in the world and having the constitution, the bill of rights, individual liberties, all this kind of stuff, to the position we're in now, where every single thing is freaking illegal, everything like there's more freaking rules and and things? On the book it goes back and it talks about back in the day of the bible, like people who were slaves paid 20 in taxes. You know what I mean 10 to 20, you're considered a slave. And now you know people are paying 50, 70, 90 in taxes.

Speaker 1: 19:40

It's absolutely absurd in different fees and not even in taxes. That's just taxes. You look at fees and just dude, you name it Like you could put whatever little catchphrase on it so that it's not called a tax. But at the end of the day we pay more and we're regulated so much and everything they say like the average person breaks like five laws a day and they don't even know it. You know and you ask yourself how in the world did we go from being so free To being so regulated? And I'm I'm almost positive. This is a huge, huge component of how that happened.

Speaker 1: 20:24

Yeah right underneath our Right underneath our nose.

Speaker 2: 20:27

Well, look at just in the last couple of years, right, I'm just going to list out a few things here, like the COVID vaccine mandates or the mask mandates that were going out, right, like OSHA mandating the vaccine for over 80 million Americans, like, okay, maybe, maybe, maybe. Right, maybe a vaccine is a good thing in certain circumstances, right, but what gives osha the power to just just mandate it and require you to have to do it if you want to travel or work, uh, at your job? You know that you got one agency that says you have to do this. If you want to show up to work tomorrow and keep your job, you have to take this vaccine, right, or or?

Speaker 1: 21:08

if you want to fly on this airplane, you got to wear a mask like who?

Speaker 2: 21:13

maybe, maybe, maybe those, maybe the answer is correct, but how you get to that answer, that's the problem. One person being able to decide that, or a group of under one roof being able to set that role, interpret their own role and force it when and how they want, that's the problem yeah, and, and, like you said, with the I mean, there's so many freaking examples of this well, let's look at like not okay, for I want to set the framework on this too.

Speaker 2: 21:43

There is a need for agencies, right, because agencies are important in a lot of regards, right, so we're not saying agencies are worthless by any means, right, but let's look at the TSA, for instance. Right, very, very important agency out there. I agree, we need it, especially with air travel and the way things are in the current world. However, one of the things that is in my opinion, I think is a perfect example of overreaching through the Chevron doctrine that the TSA does is TSA regulations prohibit interfering with a TSA official. All right, let's stop for a second. Makes sense, right? I think that it's probably a good idea that you shouldn't be able to go up and just mess with this person's job who's trying to keep everyone safe. In theory, that sounds fine. It sounds great, awesome, okay. Well, let's go a little further. Decide about that.

Speaker 2: 22:40

What does interfering mean? Well, under Chevron, the TSA gets to decide what that means, and, according to TSA's website, any behavior that is offensive or disruptive and takes officials away from their stations or work could be considered interference. Okay, that's good to know, and it's both a federal civil violation and a federal crime. Passengers are permitted and I'm reading from the website actually, I got this from their website, from TSA's website passengers are permitted to ask questions about the screening process and are free to express their feelings about TSA, so long as they do so in a way that does not interfere with the TSA agent's official duties.

Speaker 2: 23:20

At any time you disobey a TSA agent's instructions, you run the risk of violating the law. If you think you're treated unfairly, you can file a complaint with the TSA Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. So again, how is this set up? The TSA one made that rule. Two, the TSA enforces that rule. They get to decide if you're interfering with them or not, and they get to decide what conduct counts as interference or not. And then, three, they get to interpret any ambiguity as far as if it's interference or not, or if you pulled them away from their official duties. What their official duties? Well, if you have a problem, you want to ask and you want to complain.

Speaker 1: 24:07

If you, if you get in this situation, you have to ask tsa gets to make that determination if you want and then if you have a problem with it, you submit your claim to the tsa and they can evaluate whether your claim is sufficient or not.

Speaker 2: 24:22

Yep and, under Chevron, any interpretation that TSA has on that issue, on that rule that they created their view, controls, even if a court would have interpreted a different way. If a court, if an actual judicial court right, one of your judges at one of your courthouses interprets it differently than TSA does, chevron specifically makes it that the TSA's interpretation of it controls.

Speaker 1: 24:51

Yeah, and here's an example of that. This is such crap. I went to SHOT Show and we I spoke about this to you before, but you know, for the people listening the I went to SHOT Show and got a gift. It was a magazine, a 30-round magazine, right, and it had, like it was, a party favor. Everyone who showed up to this event got one of these company magazines. And for a rifle, ar-15 magazine, 30-round magazine, legal in Nevada, legal in Florida, you know, legal in almost every state.

Speaker 1: 25:22

I'm going through the TSA check. It was in my backpack. I didn't have any checked luggage, I wasn't traveling with a gun and I got stopped and they said that they had to take this. I couldn't bring it on the plane. And I just asked them why? Why can't I bring that on the plane? Know, there's no ammunition, there's no firearms. And they said, oh well, uh, this is, this is, uh, a gun part. You can't have a gun or gun parts. And I'm like, well, technically it's not a gun part, it's not an opera, it's not. You know, I work in the firearms industry. I understand what all, what all this is.

Speaker 2: 26:01

It's not a gun part fair enough, I'm gonna stop you right there for a second, not to be rude and interrupt, but again, under chevron tsa's interpretation, controls in that situation exactly.

Speaker 1: 26:12

So I explained to them look, a gun part would be an actual piece of the gun that aids in the operation of the actual weapon system. A magazine does not need to be present to still shoot a gun. You can load one round at a time and shoot a gun. So, if anything, it's an accessory. It is not actually a gun part. So after I'm having this conversation with the agents, the supervisor comes over. We're having this conversation with the agents, the supervisor comes over. We're having this discussion on whether this is an accessory or a part.

Speaker 1: 26:50

At the end of the day, I'm going to miss my flight. I'm like it is what it is. They take it, they confiscate it and they throw it in the trash, can? I'm like all right, whatever I get on the plane, I have TSA pre-check, I have global entry. Now all of my travel, every time I go to the airport, I get flagged for a random check and I travel a lot for work and I was traveling a lot.

Speaker 1: 27:16

At that time I was flying probably two to three times a month, round trips. So four to six flights a month, four to six times a month for the next four or five months in a row. I'm every single time getting my TSA pre-checked is not approved and I'm getting pulled aside for a random screening and they dig through my bags and all this stuff and I'm like, how is this random when this is happening? Every single time I complain. I'm like, dude, I paid for TSA pre-check. What is the deal? This went on for 11 and a half months. I called supervisors, I talked to people. I just kept getting passed around and around and around and even though I had never been charged or convicted of a crime, right, although I paid for the TSA pre-check right, I paid for this service. And now I was being denied it.

Speaker 1: 28:11

11 and a half months later, I get a notification that, due to my good conduct and not having any further disciplinary you know, things transpire that I'm now being officially removed from the watch list and the you know suspected dangerous watch list that they had me on like a red flag list. And I finally get in touch with someone from TSA and the supervisor level that will talk to me about this, which I had no idea I was on, and I'm like why am I getting a notification that I'm being removed from this watch list? Why the? Why am I on a watch list and they're like oh well, it shows that your record has, uh, that you tried to bring a. Wow, you tried to bring a gun on the plane. And I'm like what do you mean? I tried to bring a gun on a plane. They're like I'm like I never tried to bring a freaking gun on the plane. And I'm like what do you mean? I tried to bring a gun on a plane. They're like I'm like I never tried to bring a freaking gun on the plane. I've checked lots of guns. I've never tried to bring a gun on the plane. And they're like this says here in january of whatever year, you tried to bring a gun on the plane.

Speaker 1: 29:15

Well, after us doing some digging, it turns out that those guys at tsa with me having a magazine it went from a magazine magazine being a gun part or an accessory arguing those guys put on my record now it's an official. On my official record it says that I tried to sneak a gun on a plane in Las Vegas and nothing ever. I never went before a court, I never got arrested. I never got before a court. I never got arrested. I never got charged with anything. It's just some dudes put that on my record.

Speaker 1: 29:51

And now I have that I'm a dude who tried to smuggle a gun on a plane and there's no one you can charge or take that up with, because every time you try to argue it you get passed from one person at tsa to another person at tsa and then they just you get the round robin.

Speaker 1: 30:11

So eventually, you know uh, it got put behind us. But now I'm dealing with the same thing with my global entry. Now my global entry got, you know uh, taken away. I can't come through customs the same way I did. No one will tell me what the crime was that I did, but I've never been charged with a crime. I've never been accused of a crime. They just pulled my global entry and I'm back on some watch list and they won't tell me why I'm on a watch list. And again, it's one of those things where it's like the person who you would petition this to is the person of the same agency who put this stuff into effect and you have no recourse. There's you're. You hit a dead end every time and back to this whole.

Speaker 2: 30:53

You know if you were born. What year do you pick? 1965, 1966 yeah, something like that this is just what we've just known.

Speaker 1: 31:02

This is just how we've just known it, yeah right, I mean chevron was 1984.

Speaker 2: 31:08

What about the entire 208 years prior to that, prior to chevron being put into place, right? It never operated this way?

Speaker 1: 31:16

yeah never did I mean, I remember you used to be able to go up to the gate and when people would come visit, you could meet them at the gate of the plane and they'd come off and you're there waiting for them. You watch and that wasn't even that long ago. You watch all the old movies and people would be right up there at the gate and you'd go onto the plane.

Speaker 1: 31:34

You know, you used to be able to smoke on a plane. You used to be able to bring a knife and all that stuff on a plane.

Speaker 2: 31:45

Like that's. These are all more recent laws. Yeah, well, funny enough, we were, um, I don't know, maybe six, seven months ago we were in, uh uh, geneva, switzerland. Right, we were in geneva, switzerland, at the airport and already through security, and I'm just walking and I noticed one of the gift shops you can buy knives, like right outside of the gate, and I I kind of was like I was taken back for a second because I was like oh my god, like how are you able to sell knives? And I I'm like all right, well, we're in a different country. And then, like I joked with the lady at the cash register and I was just like you know, I was like it's kind of crazy, you just buy knives here. And she's like what do you mean? Like, of course you can buy, know? And like they were looking at me like I was the weirdo, you know.

Speaker 2: 32:24

And here we are and I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to bring a knife on the plane right now. By any means, don't write, you're getting in a lot of trouble. But like I'm in a different country, I'm supposed to be a free person representing from America, and I'm like how are you able to do this? And they're just like what do you mean? You, you can't bring knives on plane, you know. It's like you know that weird situation where you know anyways, but uh, we're not necessarily saying that agencies are, are, are, are a bad thing, right, I mean, how do they? How, let's talk about how they kind of came up in the first place, like, how did agencies even really start? Right, like what, what's their purpose? Right, there's pros and cons to anything, right? Well, they, it's essentially the New Deal, right, the New Deal came about in 1933 through 1938. It was implemented by President Roosevelt and it was a series of programs, public works, financial reforms and regulations that were an attempt to rescue the US from the Great Depression. During this time, there was a rapid increase in the number of powerful federal agencies under FDR.

Speaker 2: 33:31

Because of bureaucrats in these various agencies are unelected and because they combine executive, legislative and judicial functions, agencies have been criticized as undermining the separation of powers between the three branches of government, as undermining the separation of powers between the three branches of government. On the other hand, agencies serve an important practical purpose because they can address problems more quickly and in more detail, a lot of the times, than Congress can. So in the 30s there was again this phenomena of the president and or Congress saying you know what? We got all these new programs, our environment's going to crap. We need to fix that. I don't have time. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was like I don't have time to fix the problem. Also, deal with what is heating up over in Europe right now. Also, everything that's internally going on in the country between education and taxes and law enforcement and whatever water. You name it right. That's what the executive branch is tasked with. So of course they look for help. They look for people to come in and this is what cabinet positions are right Like the Secretary of Commerce, secretary of Defense, all these different things. These are people who are appointed over top of these agencies to deal with that narrow funnel of an issue. To get more specific on it, well, these agencies are starting to get too much power right.

Speaker 2: 35:07

So what happened was that in 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act was passed. During the rise and expansion of FDR's New Deal, there was this growing concern. So Congress went ahead and passed an act that was going to say and essentially dictate and be a roadmap for how these agencies and what parameters they need to operate in. It's still in effect today and has, quite frankly, been in effect this entire time. The APA, interestingly, is very clear in that it states that, when it comes to interpreting the law, the law shall be decided by the court system and not the agency enforcing the law. Specifically, 5 USC Section 706 states that, to the extent necessary to decision when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.

Speaker 2: 36:06

Let's talk about this for a second right, relevant questions of law. In the law there's two different types of categories, and these are terms of art. There's questions of law and then there's questions of fact. Right, questions of law specifically arises when a rule, regulation, law or statute is silent or ambiguous. The judicial branch is specifically tasked with interpreting and settling what that rule, regulation, law or statute means.

Speaker 2: 36:35

Questions of fact, on the other hand, they don't necessarily apply to today's podcast, but just to make the distinction when facts are in dispute. Right, like did he do it or not? Was he drunk at the time he was driving? Was he even driving at the time he was drunk? Right, certain facts that have to be proven.

Speaker 2: 36:56

A fact finder gets to decide which facts are true and which facts are not. That's the role of a jury for the most part, right. Sometimes you can waive it. Well, you can always waive a jury if you want, and then the judge becomes a fact finder too, but inherently the judge is the person, or the body of law, if you will, that decides all relevant questions of law. So, inherently in our government, the judicial branch has always.

Speaker 2: 37:27

Inherently in our government, the judicial branch has always, or originally has been tasked with interpreting all questions of law ambiguous statutes, silent statutes, anytime there was a loophole, the people like to call it. That's what judges either fill in, decide what that means, and then that's what applies to everybody at hand. Right, on the other hand, you also have the Administrative Procedure Act that says specifically that all that I'm sorry that reviewing courts shall decide all relevant questions of law. So not only do you have the Constitution and the way we've always done things through common law, but you also have the Administrative Procedure Act. For the entire 208 years before Chevron, that's how our country operated.

Speaker 2: 38:09

Right, if there was a dispute on what this like, back to the TSA, what does it mean to interfere with the TSA official right. Well prior to Chevron, a court got to decide what does interfering mean? What does it not mean? Right, and that's what the Administ does it not mean. Right, and that's what the administrative procedure act is what the constitution says. Chevron completely reversed that and completely turned that on its head the entire 208 years of of our principles. Chevron went and said that now courts shall defer to the agency's interpretation of a silent or ambiguous statute Huge departure from how we were originally founded.

Speaker 1: 38:54

Yeah, and that's literally like what the TSA did in my situation I was just talking about. Is they got to define what a weapon, what a gun was? Yeah, and they literally called a magazine a gun and they're like. They never took that off my record, they just said, okay, don't worry about it, because your year, your year long uh, probation period has now ended. You're good, we're going to reinstate your thing for you to be able to fly again without all the extra scrutiny. But it's like, but that's not the definition of a gun. You know, a magazine is not a gun. They're like. Oh well, you know guns or gun parts, and it's like, but it's not a gun part and it's an accessory, right, they're like. Oh well, you know. Know, we consider it a gun part, so it's labeled as a gun, but it didn't say gun part.

Speaker 2: 39:48

It said I brought a gun on the plane, yeah, or tried to.

Speaker 1: 39:50

You know I mean, but again the, the, they're the we'll get into that later like the stuff that happened with the atf, unless you want me to talk about that now.

Speaker 2: 40:01

You can talk about it now?

Speaker 1: 40:02

Yeah, but like the, same thing happened when the ATF was. We were dealing with the whole thing with the pistol brace. So they had rulings with the pistol brace of what was and class two item and who has who will have access to a class two item and or a three items. So basically, if you had a suppressor, a fully automatic rifle, a short barrel rifle, they were now saying that someone who had a pistol brace on a rifle right or a pistol brace, they're considering the short barrel rifle. And now they were going to start saying and this got shot down, thankfully, but at the time they were basically saying that if it is illegal for anyone to have access, the way they had this new way of interpreting the law right they were saying that anyone who had access to a suppressor, a fully automatic, a short-barreled rifle or anything like that, you were what was the phrase called where you were guilty by, like if you were in proximity.

Speaker 2: 41:17

Constructive possession.

Speaker 1: 41:19

Constructive possession. That was the magic word. So constructive possession meant that if I went to the shooting range and I had my rifle with a suppressor on it, on the table, and I took my hand off of it and turned around to load a magazine, and someone else was in within reach, like in the next bay over standing next to me, within reach, like in the next bay over standing next to me, right, and they could theoretically reach the gun and I didn't have it in my hand, we were now both committing a felony right, because that person could have constructive possession of something that they're now saying that no one but the registered agent who was filed the paperwork for that weapon or that item could. No, no one else could no longer have constructive possession of it. And if they did, they were in, they were committing a felony and, to be clear, that was the atf's interpretation of that correct yes, that was the atf's new interpretation of how yeah that how, when they tried to do the pistol brace and they were

Speaker 1: 42:25

going to take 40 plus million AR pistols and now classify them as a class two item as a short barreled rifle. In addition to that, one of the things that they snuck into that bill, or that new definition of the law, was the constructive possession. So that now meant that if you did not live by yourself, if you had a safe that you kept your guns in and your wife had access to your safe but it was registered in your name, you and your wife were now committing a felony because she could get access to it.

Speaker 1: 43:01

If if you went to the range, no one could shoot us. Now I? So now I'm asking them and I'm like, okay, well, if I'm calling up the ATF and trying to talk to their customer support, and I'm like, hey, this is what you guys are currently saying, unless this gets overruled by a judge, this is what you guys are defining the new law as and this is your interpretation of your law, right? So if I run courses and I have students who come to our range, can my students no longer shoot those rifles, right With a suppressor on them? If I have someone who's coming who wants to purchase one, they can still purchase them. How do you let someone test fire or to even look at one of these and hold it in their hand and feel how heavy it is, or anything like that, if you're saying that no one can have that constructive possession unless they have the legal paperwork done and have paid their tax stamp?

Speaker 2: 43:57

these were your questions.

Speaker 1: 43:58

The atf over the phone, yeah, and the atf was like oh well, we're not really sure. I talked to another agent and then that agent's like yeah, you know, that's what it says, but we're really not going to enforce that.

Speaker 2: 44:11

Today they don't want. You know, maybe what about tomorrow?

Speaker 1: 44:13

Exactly, but you're, you're basically the response you're getting is like yeah, that's what we're saying it is, but don't worry, we're not going to enforce it that way.

Speaker 1: 44:24

You know what I mean and you're like but you could like if there's a video or a photo of us at the range and a year from now, or six months from now or whatever if, if or if I talk to, someone else comes and does an audit and finds that we did, or an investigator sees us you know one of the people coming to the range and shooting one of these and testing it to see if they want to purchase one well, that agent's going to say well, who told you that? I don't know why they told you that. The the statute's clear. It's right here in writing. It says destructive possession xyz. You are committing a felony.

Speaker 1: 45:04

Why would you listen to what the agent told you on the phone? This is what it says right here. So there was every agent. Every person you talked to gave you a different, because we talked to them five times and in five times we got a different example or a different understanding of what their own rule was and how it was going to be executed. Right, um, and administered with five different agents. We got five different.

Speaker 2: 45:30

You know, uh, types of feedback on that well that exact phenomena across so many different agencies, right, and I'm sure, like anyone listened to this probably has their own examples of of how this has gone afray. Whether it's they're talking to the local building department trying to get permits pulled, whatever, whatever agency you're dealing with, whether it's getting a driver's license reinstated right, All of that's through agency. The US Supreme Court last Friday right, specifically stated, and I'm going to quote, specifically stated, and I'm going to quote Chevron allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so. By its sheer breadth, Chevron fosters unwarranted instability in the law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency action in an internal fog of uncertainty.

Speaker 1: 46:23

Yeah, that kind of makes me think of every year when you go to your taxes, like the tax code changes every single year and you have to have an accountant because you're like I don't know what the new law is and most of the accountants don't even know what the new law is. It's like 3000 pages and it changes every year and you're like I'm trying to follow the rules that you guys made up, but you keep changing the rules, so how am I supposed to stay current on this when you guys just keep changing it?

Speaker 2: 46:51

Yeah, yeah, I mean, look, I mean, one of the things that you keep seeing throughout history is that, if anything, history has taught us time and time again, and as the last four years have shown us, that when you put all of this power into one group's hand, under one roof, tyranny is sure to follow right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Speaker 1: 47:11

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 47:12

Right, and I think it was the Lord Action that said that in 1857, right, you know, and that's a pretty common saying absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Speaker 1: 47:21

And when you look at this from the aspect of okay, you have this little mini tyrant, this little mini dictator controlling this, but how many agencies are there?

Speaker 2: 47:38

Like there's literally thousands ATF, EPA, faa, the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, the Department of Education, property Appraisers Offices, the DHSMV, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Commerce, osha I could say it for hours.

Speaker 1: 47:54

Yeah, fish and Game, wildlife, and then within those, there are subcategories underneath all of those, and we have those for state and federal. There are subcategories underneath all of those and we have those for state and federal. And when you look at how many agencies there are and if they're all allowed to create their own rules and basically create this fourth branch of government where they're self-regulating right, like you're saying, absolute create, you know, corrupts uh, absolutely right. And with that also, oh man, I lost my train of thought. What I was going to say with that well, look at, look at this, right.

Speaker 2: 48:39

Look at, let's go to the opposing viewpoint for a second. Okay, right, let's look at people who actually support Chevron, right, and that are sad or frustrated or angry to see it go. A lot of what I've heard and I've seen people say this and people said it to me that Chevron did not invite tyranny because you still had the ability to complain directly to the agency to try and get the agency to change their policies that's.

Speaker 1: 49:06

That's exactly okay. That's what I was gonna say. Um is, you have people say that america. You have people arguing right now that america is a democracy. It's not a democracy, it's a democratic republic and we're supposed to be able to vote on the people who we have appointed to represent us. Right? One of the problems with this fourth branch of government that's been created through this one finding, which is in contradiction to 208 years of law, is none of these people are voted on. You know what I mean. So exactly what you're talking about right there, like, okay, the only person that, if you don't like how that's being, uh, that agency is being run, there's. We don't have a single say right now. If you don't like, the cia is a popular one. You don't like the CIA is a popular one. You don't like how that's being run. There's no one you're going to vote.

Speaker 2: 50:10

You can't vote to change the head of that agency. The dissenting opinion, the people who oppose Chevron being overturned, their view is, is that you get to vote for the president and the president appoints these people. So their their view is and whether or not you agree with this or not, right, just to look at both sides of the coin here. Their view is you do and you get to vote for the president, and you should pay attention because the president is going to appoint all these people.

Speaker 1: 50:33

Well, so, for example, when Trump got into office, you have people in these positions, people in these positions. This is I think this is really where you get into the deep state. Uh, or, one of the examples of the tentacles of the deep state is you have this entire bureaucracy of unelected officials who wind up having more control. Like, if you think about how many things that these agencies regulate inside your everyday life, they have way more influence over the intricacies of how your daily lifestyle looks than most of the people in Congress and and the Senate and and governor. You know, maybe not governors and whatnot, but like all these agencies, these really affect every single microscopic thing sure within your life and um everything.

Speaker 1: 51:33

Man like you can really finally get down into that right like you're not, dude, you're not allowed to drink freaking raw cow milk, right you, you're not allowed to. I can't be like, hey, I'm a fucking grown-up, I want to drink raw goat milk. I'll take the risk, let me drink it like, no, you can't do that. What do you mean? It's it's fresh from an animal. You want to go have a. Like new jersey doesn't allow you to have a garden. It's against the rules to have gardens and to let your friends have that, because they're saying that you're breaking commerce and you're you know it hasn't been checked by the, by the, you know, food and drug administration or whatever the agency is, or whatever. But it's like dude, you're telling me I can't just grow my own food and let my friend have a fucking tomato from my garden and here's the other thing and we need to flesh this out too.

Speaker 2: 52:26

This is super important. Another thing that the dissent has that they keep bringing up is these agencies. Right, their view is that these agencies are experts in their fields. Therefore, we need to defer to them, we need them to go ahead. Why should we overrule these objections, right?

Speaker 2: 52:44

One of the articles that came out I think it was from the LA Times specifically said you know, by doing this by the Supreme Court yeah, the LA Times. The headline reads with its Chevron ruling, the Supreme Court shows that it thinks it's smarter than scientific experts. Right, and I'm going to get into this in a second, because the majority in the Supreme Court Court in the case that overturned it Loper Bright Enterprises is the name of the case that overturned Chevron the majority actually gets into this, right, and they're like we as the Supreme Court, right, this is the majority speaking, we as the Supreme Court I'm not quoting them, I'm paraphrasing at this point. They're saying that. You know, we're not saying the experts are irrelevant. We want their opinion, but now, instead of telling us what we have to do, they have to persuade us that we should do it their way.

Speaker 2: 53:37

They have to sit there and actually come to us and persuade us to enforce and make a rule that says, maybe we shouldn't have more than six chickens in our backyard? Maybe we should. Maybe we shouldn't have more than six chickens in our backyard, Maybe we should. Maybe we shouldn't have gardens in our backyard, Maybe we should. Let's sit and debate about this. Let's talk about this. Let's talk about the pros and cons about this. Maybe we shouldn't let companies dump a bunch of chemicals into our rivers. That's probably a good idea to stop them from doing that, right, but to have one small group under one roof. Tell us what we have to do in all these instances, whether it's drinking raw milk, whether it's the length of our barrel on our rifle, or whether or not it's a pistol brace or a bump stock, or the amount of chickens I'm allowed to have in my backyard, or if I'm allowed to collect runoff the rainwater from my roofs, and how and when, and all this sort of stuff. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have these discussions.

Speaker 1: 54:34

Or even like the federal government, you know, through the housing and development system agency, forcing towns and tax. Essentially it's a forcing taxpayers. Your town has to have a certain amount of low income housing in your community. That's why you see all these. You ever noticed that there's these giant apartment complexes being built everywhere, in every single town, the same damn looking apartment complex that's being forced on the taxpayer. Right, they came in, we didn't vote on that. They're forcing you to put in all this stuff in your towns and and you have, you have no say in it yeah, and I mean, look, anything we can, we can go.

Speaker 2: 55:18

We could talk literally for probably months. There's so many examples out there, but the big things right, like and that that probably strike a lot of chords, positive or negative, right in recent history, vaccine mandates, right, to be able to get on a plane, you had to wear a mask. To be able to come into work, you gotta show proof of vaccination to be able to get into this country, you gotta show proof of vaccination to leave the country, you gotta blah, blah, blah. All this sort of stuff. It's like, okay, maybe vaccines are a good thing in certain circumstances, but let's talk about that. You, why are you just? Why is one group forcing that on everybody? Yeah, what happened to my body?

Speaker 1: 55:54

my choice right, yeah, it's like I mean look like, like no one.

Speaker 1: 55:58

But again, what about the hippa like? What about your hippo rights? So you have the ability to like if, if someone says, uh, you have a service dog, right, and they're not, because of your privacy, you're not allowed to ask them. Well, yeah, what's your disability? You know what I mean. They can ask are you disabled? Is that your dog? Is it working for you right now? You don't have to tell them what your disability is. That's your private information. Them what your disability is, right, that's your private information. You know what I mean. Why do you have, why?

Speaker 1: 56:30

How did that just all of a sudden get circumnavigated? And now, okay, well, privacy rights only matter, unless it's for the covid vaccine now, now that that changes it. So for that we're making a, uh, we're making a loophole. But if you want to come in, you have to do contact tracing and show vaccine, get a pcr test and all this stuff. But if you're coming across the border, you don't need to do any of that stuff and we'll ship you all across the country, right, and we'll put you wherever, and but. But in that case, you know, and it doesn't make any sense just to go down a completely separate hole.

Speaker 2: 57:08

Real quick, right, right, like, look at the Department of Education, right they were, they're trying to implement I think it was supposed to start August of this year, maybe September of this year, that they were going to implement that all schools must implement gender neutral bathrooms. Under Chevron, your only recourse would have been to complain directly to the Department of Education that that's a problem. We as a school don't want gender neutral bathrooms, right? Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but again, as a democracy, we should at least on a local level, be able to decide for ourselves. If you initiated a lawsuit right, if Chevron still existed. If you initiated a lawsuit in the local courts still existed. If you initiated a lawsuit in the local courts, the courts would have been bound by the Chevron doctrine and the courts would have also had to defer to the Department of Education's interpretation of what the Department of Education's powers were. If Chevron was never overturned, we can almost certainly predict that schools across the country would have been forced to implement gender neutral bathrooms, and if they didn't, they would face crippling fines and or criminal prosecution by the Department of Education, and there's no one to complain.

Speaker 2: 58:12

Think about you, know, I'm not. I'm not necessarily comparing agencies to small children, but think, if you got a brother and a sister and they're fighting over a toy and one of them's being a bully, right, what's the typical thing that you know they will usually do? Mom, dad, uh-oh, they're're, they're, they're pulling in the, the big guns. Now, right, that's the same thing with, like, a lawsuit. It's like whoa, like mr agency, like you can't, what are you doing? Like, who gave you that power? I'm gonna go to the courts, mom, dad, I'm going to the courts. The courts are gonna decide this for us. Under chevron, the courts had to sit out. Well, okay, they weren't sitting out, and if you can see my hands, I'm making the bunny ears. They would allow to come in and they were allowed to figure out the situation. But Chevron tied their hands and said well, whatever the Department of Education or whatever the agency wants to do, we got to follow it.

Speaker 1: 59:06

Yeah, wants to do. We got to follow it. Yeah, so you, can you have an idea of how much tyranny and how much damage this, this, and it's one of those things too.

Speaker 1: 59:19

We're like maybe these things started with good intentions yeah, for sure, as they always seem to do, you know but then once you give, once you give government an inch, once you give people an inch, they want more and more and more, and the more power they get right and the longer they operate under that power, the more power that. Basically, you have to relinquish the majority of this power that you have, because some of these rules and regulations have been actually officially approved, correct. Many of them were just handled in-house To get someone to relinquish that amount of power without having to go to battle, for it is pretty fascinating.

Speaker 2: 1:00:16

And here's the thing too right, by Chevron being overturned, it doesn't mean these rules and regulations have crumbled in on themselves. They're still there, right, the TSA is still showing up to work. I'm sure there's still a sign that says interference with a TSA officer is punishable by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right, like then. They put them all throughout the lines as you're walking through. If you haven't noticed them, look now you probably will. Right, all that stuff is still there and they're still going to enforce it.

Speaker 2: 1:00:44

What now you can do is is you can now get the courts involved. You can now challenge that authority through the courts, and the courts actually can get in and grapple with it and have a real legitimate say on it. Right, because before courts are charged with interpreting the law, so long as it fits within the confines of the constitution, agencies were then given that power through chevron, and they were just play nice, make sure you stay within the fines of the constitution. We don't really have any power to come and check you if you get outside of those boundaries. Courts have to sit it out so what?

Speaker 1: 1:01:26

what transpired to actually overthrow Chevron?

Speaker 2: 1:01:32

Sure, so it's, it's. It's what one case actually? It's not the transpiring of one case, it's many things that have chiseled away over Chevron over the last 40 years. We're going to skip over that for a second. The case that actually did overturn it, skip over that for a second. The case that actually did overturn it. It's a case called Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo I don't know if I'm pronouncing that, right the Secretary of Commerce.

Speaker 2: 1:01:58

So specifically and I'll go into the factual background because I think this does a really good job of, in my opinion, showing some substantial overreaching by one of the federal agencies. And here it is. Here's what happened, so specifically to and again, I'm going to preface it with this it's about fishing and it's about overfishing the oceans around America, which is a legitimate concern, right, I'm not saying that's not a legitimate concern. The problem is, is the overreaching that occurred and that is what the Supreme Court is saying is the issue? Yes, we should, and that's my opinion that we should protect against overfishing, but to have one agency dictate how that happens, that's the issue. We all need to sit down and figure it out, or congress does, and these experts, and then decide from a voting standpoint as to what we want to do as a society. So, with that being said, to combat against overfishing, uh, around the us congress created the magnuson stevens fishery conservation.

Speaker 1: 1:03:06

Yeah, do you ever even know that thing existed? Right exactly so. That's what I was saying. How many of these agencies are out there that, like we've talked about the big ones, like the atf, fbi, ci, there's thousands and thousands of these, like the thing you just read. I had to read it.

Speaker 2: 1:03:21

I had to read it. I didn't even know it existed.

Speaker 1: 1:03:23

I guarantee you, no one listening to this had ever even heard of that before, unless you work in the fishing industry no one's ever even heard of that before listening to this right.

Speaker 2: 1:03:31

So you got, and again it's. It's actually between two pages, so hold on a second. The magnuson stevenson's fishery conservation and management act was created in 1975. The national marine fishery service was tasked with administering the msa. So again, again an eight. So a law was created. And then this agency, the National Marine Fishery Service and maybe, maybe you're familiar with it If you're listening to this podcast and you're fishermen, like cool, I can see like I'm an idiot on the subject. I've never heard of that Right, me neither, until I read this case. But besides that, here's the point, right, so the NMFS, the National Marine Fishery Service, was tasked with administering this act about overfishing under a delegation from the Secretary of Commerce. That's important, we're going to come back to that. Remember, under a delegation from the Secretary of Commerce, okay, so the President of the United States appoints the Secretary of Commerce and then the secretary of commerce delegates the NMFS to administer this overfishing act. So now we're two tiers down on the delegation doctrine. So we go back to again the dissenting opinion. The opinion that says Chevron should never have been overturned is saying that you do have control over all this because you can vote for the president, right, but follow this chain here and we're not done with this chain because I haven't even gotten to the power of the people who are actually creating this law. It's going to be an issue here in a second.

Speaker 2: 1:05:01

The president appoints the secretary of commerce of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce then delegates this authority to the National Marine Fisheries Services and then the National Marine Fisheries Services establishes eight regional fishery management councils, which these councils develop fishery management plans which the NMFS approves and promulgates as final regulations. The councils are, in essence, three tiers down on the delegation chain and what they draft as management plans are then codified into regulations which the NMFS enforces. So if you or anybody had a problem with these codes or regulations, can you unelect these council members? No, they were appointed, and they were appointed a few tiers down on the rung of who actually got elected.

Speaker 2: 1:06:04

And this is the. This is a it's called the delegation doctrine. How far is too far right? Here we're three or four tiers down on the delegation doctrine, but there's plenty of examples out there that go six, eight, 12 tiers down on it. So it's like who is this 12th person in line?

Speaker 2: 1:06:21

How are they able to create this law, enforce this law and then interpret this law, however they want, this law, enforce this law and then interpret this law however they want. Let alone, who is this person and who's this person going to be in four years from now, if a new president comes in, or if a new governor comes in and they appoint all new people, it's probably pretty certain that that council is going to get swiped and new people are going to get put in there, which is exactly back to the ATF situation that you described earlier. Chevron allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so. By its sheer breadth, chevron fosters unwarranted instability in the law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency action in an internal fog of uncertainty. Right, these council members are specifically making these roles for the nmfs, and they're getting adopted and promulgated. Uh, what if you don't like them? Who you complain to, right?

Speaker 1: 1:07:17

that's just food for thought that's kind of like what we're seeing right now with the schools with these uh, with having these books that are inappropriate and talk about sex and sexual acts with children like underneath fifth grade, and parents are trying to complain about it and it just goes to like the school board and then it never goes anywhere and you're in this vicious cycle fighting the department of education and it's like how come the parents have no say in this? And at the end of the day, the department of education has the these council people who are there allowing these books to be in the school, even though all the parents are saying like we don't want our kids having this sexualized material right in in the in the freaking classroom.

Speaker 1: 1:08:08

They're little kids and the parents are basically they have to complain because the the department of education. You know they're fighting a, a battle where you know the all, the judge, jury, and you know the rule setters are all of the same organization right now.

Speaker 2: 1:08:28

Look at, look at this like, look at this fishing thing, right, maybe? Right? So this, the National Marine Fisheries Service, we know it's been around since 1975. Well, okay, that was around the entire time Chevron was around too. It's been in existence even longer than Chevron was in existence, right? So maybe they had good intentions initially, and in fact I think they did, because if you put together some of the dates which I'm about to throw at you in a second, you're going to realize that things went vastly astray in just the last few years with this, and this is how this got challenged. So, at the center of the issue in this most recent US Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises over Tony Chevron was whether or not the National Marine Fisheries Service can require that domestic fishing vessels pay the salaries of one or more observers to be carried on board domestic vessels for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery. Okay, this is important because the dissent points to this right.

Speaker 2: 1:09:31

The people, people who are opposed to Chevron being overturned and you see this in headlines and articles specifically saying judges think they're smarter than scientific experts right, these observers right In theory, in a in a good interpretation of this theory, giving them everyone the benefit of the doubt. They're there to figure out what's being overfished, how we prevent that and how to have a healthy fish population around america so that we can continue fishing for generations and not burn it out or uh, whatever right and destroy the environment. Valid concern, super valid concern. No one's saying at least no one on this podcast is saying it's a bad thing. I don't know if there's anybody out there that hates fish, but anyways, it cost approximately $710 per day to have one observer on board of these vessels and, when all was said and done, it ate into about 20% of the fishing vessel's profits.

Speaker 2: 1:10:30

And this is from the Supreme Court. So this that's. I'm not just making these numbers up, this is me regurgitating what the Supreme Court is saying through the facts that were presented to the Supreme Court. Okay, from the start of the MSA Act in 1975, up until 2020. So just four years ago, the national marine fisheries service fully funded the mandatory observer coverage out of federal funding. So for the longest time ever since, before chevron, they required these observers to be on these vessels but we were paying that through our taxes and we were paying it through taxes.

Speaker 2: 1:11:05

Yeah, and they were collecting data, and they were figuring out what was overfished and what wasn't overfished, and blah blah blah. Right In 2020, though, the National Marine Fisheries Service adopted the council's proposal. Okay, so we're back down to the councilmen, who are now proposing to amend the regulations so that they required the fishermen to pay for the observers. The National Marine Fisheries Service adopted the council's proposal and approved this new rule into the National Marine Fisheries Service's regulations in 2020, which gave rise to the current lawsuit. That took a few years Again. The suit happened in 2020.

Speaker 1: 1:11:47

The fishing companies have been affected for the last four years, having to pay these guys salaries, and now, in 2024, it finally got decided so if you wanted to run a fishing boat, you'd have to pay the salary of a person to come on the boat and watch you and make sure you're following the rules and to report back to the agency. Right you have. You, as a fisherman, would now have to pay someone $710 a day to be on a boat that is doing not doing any fishing.

Speaker 2: 1:12:22

Yep, and and what? What happened? So this particular company, if I understand it correctly and I don't know much about fishing in this context, so I'm just regurgitating what the Supreme Court has relayed but essentially, apparently, when a vessel leaves to go out on a fishing expedition, they have to report into the National Marine Fishery Service. And then the National Marine Fishery Service decides and statistically turns out that about half or a little bit more than half of all vessels that go out, they stop them and say we're going to randomly select you to put an observer on your ship. And then now, if that's the case, that ship, that vessel, has to pay that person's salary that the NMFS is forcing to be on that ship. It's important to note that Congress never authorized the National Marine Fisheries Service to force domestic fishermen to have to pay for mandatory observers.

Speaker 1: 1:13:13

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:13:14

The NMFS just went ahead and did it anyways. Congress did authorize the NMFS to charge foreign fishermen, right, and not again, because we didn't get into this. But there was an issue where, uh, apparently, uh, our sovereignty goes, I think, 12 miles out to out into the ocean, right. Well, apparently what was happening was all these foreigners were coming into 13, 14 miles off the coast and just just crushing the fish populations. So what the what this act did was extended that out to 200 miles and now it's if you want to come fish, you, you can, but we're going to put an observer on you and you have to pay for it if you're a foreigner, and Congress specifically said they can do that. So that's not being challenged.

Speaker 2: 1:13:59

What's being challenged is our domestic vessels are now heading out into these waters and want to fish, and for the first 25 years our government paid for it, our tax dollars paid for it. But now the councilmen are saying you know what? Why don't we just save this money and use it elsewhere? I don't know if they gave themselves salaries increases or what. I have no idea what happened to that money that they that they quote unquote saved or spent elsewhere. But now they're saying you know what the domestic guys are going to pay for it too, even though they had no specific authority to do so. Now, congress was silent. Right, this is important. Congress was silent as to whether or not the national marine fishery service could charge domestic fishermen with having to pay the salary of mandatory observers.

Speaker 1: 1:14:46

So they didn't say they couldn't do it, but they didn't specifically say you could so since they were silent, going back to how the chevron doctrine just gave them carte blanche on yep, silence meaning okay, then you can determine whatever you want, because they didn't say you could or couldn't.

Speaker 2: 1:15:02

So that means you can decide if you can or can't yep, and if you want to have a court, if you want to challenge the agency's interpretation to a court, the court has to defer to the agency's interpretation interesting thing, uh, and this is.

Speaker 1: 1:15:16

This is could be a stretch, but a lot of dissent is saying like this opens up by not having the Chevron Act. It opens up the ability for fraud and abuse and whatnot, you know, and corporate fraud. But as I'm listening to this and you're thinking about the year 2020 and all the things that have been happening through the time of COVID and how big corporations have come in and basically through the mandates of all these different agencies, like remember you had the, the cows and the chickens and the and the pigs, and during the whole covid thing, in the lockdowns, they ordered they ordered farmers to cull thousands of cows yeah thousands of pigs, right to clear their farms, right to to pour out millions of gallons of milk, and then all this stuff basically put these farmers out of business.

Speaker 1: 1:16:28

And then, during the time frame, someone like bill gates buys up 80 of all the private farms yeah you could look at this and go.

Speaker 1: 1:16:39

If you're following that same track record of the monopolization of our food industry, you could look at that and go. These agencies are forcing fishermen to accrue more expenses to put the small fishermen out of business. Because if you're a small fisherman, dude $700 something a day to have someone on your boat and it's mandatory, that's a big deal. That's probably more than they're paying. That probably pays for three dudes on the boat or two dudes on the boat.

Speaker 2: 1:17:14

You know what I mean. They say that it ate into about 20% of their profit 20% of their profit right.

Speaker 2: 1:17:20

Overnight, right, like that was for 25 years. You know, if you're a family business and you've been operating for 25 years, now all of a sudden they're forcing you to pay this person's salary and you don't have a choice. That's crazy, yeah, and it ate into 20 percent of your profit. That's 20 percent of your income. That's crazy, yeah, and it ate into 20% of your income.

Speaker 2: 1:17:40

The Supreme Court obviously overturned Chevron here, but let's talk about what the lower courts did, because obviously you can't just go straight to the Supreme Court. You got to start at the lowest level and then work your way up, right? Well, all of the lower courts on this particular case essentially followed the Chevron Doctrine, as almost all courts have done since 1984. And these lower courts deferred to the National Marine Fisheries Services Agency's interpretation of what their powers were, even when this was silent, even though there was no specific statute that gave them the ability to do this. The lower courts followed Chevron and they said the lower courts followed Chevron and they said cool, if that's your interpretation, awesome, right? Well, I want to go back real quick to the 10th Amendment, and the 10th Amendment specifically states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. So it's kind of a two-way street here, because the 10th amendment, well, the 10th amendment is pretty much dead at this point. But the way that that works, obviously and I keep harping this is, unless it was specifically given to the government, it's retained by the people.

Speaker 2: 1:18:51

But here, this national marine fishery service, the ability to charge the domestic fishermen with having to pay these people, these observers, these mandatory observer salaries, that was never specifically given to them, but they interpreted it that way. So we're going to we have to let them do. That is really what the lower courts did. Reason that, since Congress was silent as to whether or not the NMFS can force domestic fishermen to pay for mandatory observers, that gave rise to an ambiguity in the law. Therefore, the courts must defer to. However the National Marine Fisheries Services wanted to interpret that ambiguity. The NMFS, of course, interpreted Congress's silence as broad power for the National Marine Fisheries Service to charge whomever and whatever they wanted. Chevron demands that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations, including those that have been inconsistent over time. Right, I'm going to read that again, and this is specifically from Loeber Wright Enterprises the Supreme Court opinion that overturned Chevron, the Supreme Court specifically said that Chevron demands that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations, including those interpretations that have been inconsistent over time.

Speaker 1: 1:20:17

So that means if you are having one rule one year and then next year you change the rule and you keep going back and forth. It doesn't matter how many times you change it. You can just change it when you feel like doing it.

Speaker 2: 1:20:27

Yep and, as we know, science changes all the time, so the agency's interpretation would change all the time, and specifically the Loeb of Bright Enterprise. The opinion states that again I'll harp this Chevron allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so. By its sheer breadth, chevron fosters unwarranted instability in the law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency action in an internal fog of uncertainty agency action and an internal fog of uncertainty.

Speaker 1: 1:21:06

Yeah, and this is something like again, you're not working in the fishing industry, but but this way of conducting your business, like that's not a tax, that they don't count that when they go oh, how much are americans tax? They don't count that when they go well, how much are Americans taxed? They don't count that as a tax right. But that's a forced. You're forced to pay that.

Speaker 1: 1:21:27

And I remember when we were doing the cabin here on the property and we wanted to close off a porch and make a porch have walls. So it's now inside the house. It was underneath the roof line. The roof already extended out, had the, the pillars and all that stuff. So we weren't adding anything to the foundation. We weren't adding we're just going to take a porch and make the porch enclosed. The zoning department and the the county forced me to hire a septic company and have a septic guy come out, drain our septic tank, do an inspection of the septic tank before they would approve me closing off the corner of the house which was a porch, and now it's making indoors. You know what I mean. But that's not a tax. But like you have, they're like okay, well, you're not getting, you're not getting a building permit. You can't do this until you do that right and then they would do other things too.

Speaker 1: 1:22:33

But like who do you complain?

Speaker 2: 1:22:34

to who do you complain? To you?

Speaker 1: 1:22:35

Who do you complain to? You can't complain to anyone.

Speaker 2: 1:22:37

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:22:38

But they're forcing you to spend money and for them to then look over the documentation. It's part of the permit process. So the county just got $80 to $175 to review my paperwork showing that I got the septic tank drained and inspected. And they give you this whole laundry list of things to do. But again it's like who do you complain to? You know what I mean, but that doesn't count as a tax.

Speaker 2: 1:23:09

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:23:10

But they're forcing you to conduct your daily life. They're forcing you to, and they'll just change it. Who came up with it being $175? Right, who came up with that?

Speaker 2: 1:23:21

Who came up with it being $175? Right, who came up with?

Speaker 1: 1:23:23

that? Who came up with getting the permit for that specific issue in the first place? Yeah, why do I need to check this? You know I'm not adding bedrooms, I'm not like that.

Speaker 2: 1:23:29

Me closing off a porch doesn't say that there's going to be more people living in the house and maybe again back to this, right, maybe that's the right conclusion to come to. Maybe it's an appropriate conclusion to come to that, yeah, maybe we should have people get permits for this and maybe we should have them pay 175 or whatever it is, because it's justified under these circumstances, right, but again, for one agency to just dictate that, yeah, and you have no way of challenging it, that is, in essence, tear, that is tyranny yeah, right, but they're also deciding what the price is.

Speaker 1: 1:24:02

Like they got to like when you're reading that, they got to decide hey, we want our guys to get paid seven hundred and ten dollars a day. Yeah, you know, tough shit, you want to be a fisherman. This is the cost of doing business.

Speaker 2: 1:24:15

Right. So that, right there, right that that sets up the tipping point for the United States Supreme Court to then overrule those lower courts and strike down Chevron entirely, essentially saying that Chevron was quote, unquote wrongly decided. The Administrative Procedure Act, right, the APA, which was passed back in, I think, 1945 or 1946, which we talked about earlier in the podcast. The courts shall decide all relevant questions of law, not agencies. The courts get to determine what an ambiguous statute means. Now the courts again get to determine. If a statute is silent on a particular thing, the courts interpret what that silence means, not the agencies anymore.

Speaker 2: 1:25:06

Huge shift in power. Huge shift in power because now these fishing which they did and they won, right, these fishing people, or throw in anything that you can think of in this situation. Now, if there's an ambiguity and if an agency is overreaching, before you'd have to complain to the agency and the agent you'd be like, hey, that's, you can't do that. And you're like the agency is like, yeah, we can, we say we can, and the courts would have to allow them to do that. They'd have to defer to their interpretation of it and it was wishy waswashy depending on who was in the administration at that time. Right now you and everyone else can go to the court and challenge whatever the agency is you think you're as maybe overreaching and the court gets to decide for that agency and it's going to hopefully be a lot more in line with the constitution and with stat basic statutory construction of how laws are supposed to be read.

Speaker 1: 1:26:01

That's awesome. That's great news for the American people.

Speaker 2: 1:26:05

Yeah, except for if you hate the decision. Right Again, a lot of these people are like well, these observers are experts and we need them because we need to know what's being overfished. No one's saying we don't need observers, no one's saying we shouldn't study the effects of overfishing and no one's saying we shouldn't have regulations for fishing right Now. Agencies must use their power to persuade, not their power to control.

Speaker 2: 1:26:34

As Chevron itself noted, ambiguities may result from an inability on the part of Congress to squarely answer the question at hand, or from a failure to even consider the question with the requisite precision. In neither case does an ambiguity necessarily reflect a congressional intent that an agency, as opposed to a court, resolved the resulting interpretive question and many, or perhaps most, statutory ambiguities may be unintentional. As the framers recognized, ambiguities will inevitably follow from the complexity of objects, the imperfection of the human faculties and the simple fact that no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea. The only way to ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion, is for us to leave Chevron behind.

Speaker 2: 1:27:34

Courts must now exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. As the APA requires, careful attention to the judgment of the executive branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not, defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. That's the newest Supreme Court ruling on what they said.

Speaker 1: 1:28:16

That's great, and the thing is is is so when they're saying like, leave chevron behind, I I think chevron never should have been adopted to begin with.

Speaker 2: 1:28:28

you know what I mean. Like, back to what you were saying before. Right, like I, I really think it was adopted with good intentions. Right, even justice scalia. Right, the infamous justice scalia, the late Scalia Now. He was, in fact, an early champion of Chevron. However, a few years after it came ever coherent enough to be called a rule at all.

Speaker 2: 1:29:01

Right, ambiguity is a term that we may have different meanings for between different judges. One judge might see ambiguity everywhere, another might not ever encounter it. Right, and these are things that the Supreme Court is saying in this case. These are actual quotes from this particular Supreme Court opinion. Right, ambiguity is a rule of law that is wholly in the eye of the beholder. It invites different results in like cases and is therefore arbitrary in practice. Such an impressionistic and malleable concept cannot stand as an everyday test for allocating interpretative authority between courts and agencies.

Speaker 2: 1:29:42

Advocating interpretive authority between courts and agencies. So if an agency said this was ambiguous, the agency's view controlled and the agency got to interpret what that ambiguity meant, which exactly gave rise to instability in the law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency's action in an internal fog of uncertainty. You no idea, maybe the rule is going to be read in a. It's not going to impede your business for the next few years, but, lord knows what, two more years or four more years down the road. Whoever's going to interpret that? I don't know how they're going to interpret that, and they may come in and say that because I left my firearm here and I had a suppressor on it and this other dude standing next to me, he's in constructive possession of it.

Speaker 1: 1:30:21

Yeah, you see a lot of this going on in like where this can go to. So let's just look at this thing with the fishery, like let's say that went on for four years.

Speaker 2: 1:30:32

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:30:34

So who's to say that other agencies don't start saying, hey, you know what, and they probably do this, they probably do this with the other, with the other farms, like you have to have this inspector come out. I know that I know. Like they have food inspectors and code inspectors and you know, uh, and you got to pay for them to come out and do an inspection. That's not you know the. The business has to do that. And it's like, dude, do we want the food inspected? Like, make sure that the restaurant's operating?

Speaker 1: 1:31:02

you know a good way like I'm not saying that it shouldn't be right, but you, if you start putting that in and there's no set rules and and you can just start charging whatever you want, and one of the things that we're seeing over in, like and again, this is a different country, right, but a lot of these countries are ahead of us in a lot of this stuff, right, america still has, in some ways, has some of those freedoms still like more in check.

Speaker 1: 1:31:34

But in Germany, with this whole green push, they're saying in the next couple of years, your house has to be what they call zero emissions and if it's not and some of these houses are going to cost like 50,000 euros or 150,000 euros to convert a home to be zero emissions and if you don't, then you have to pay fines and if you don't do it within five years after the end date, then they can remove you from your home. So it's like you have a home that you already paid for, you bought it, and now they're like oh yeah, you have to go change the windows, you can't use gas anymore, you got to do this. You can't burn wood. Uh, you got to change these roofs, you got to put this insulation in, and they're just making. Just some dude comes in, goes yeah dude.

Speaker 2: 1:32:28

This is what we're doing now yeah, yeah, exactly, and it's like now. Now you actually have an ability to try to challenge that. Yeah, now the question is is did the legislature specifically delegate that task and that authority to that person? Who's trying to do that? Yeah, you know.

Speaker 1: 1:32:44

The same thing. With that, you go okay, well, these are the experts. Okay, well, we've heard, trust the science, trust the science. Now all this information is coming out that, okay, the scientists said you had to wear the mask and six feet. Years later, fauci is saying that, okay, I just kind of arbitrarily came up with six feet. Oh, the masks don't actually work, but you told us they did. Well, science changes.

Speaker 2: 1:33:09

Think about all the people got arrested, Like I remember this. We brought this up in the last podcast. This guy got arrested for swimming in the ocean off of one of the carolinas I think I forget which state I just think I remember that california too there you go. Yeah, and it's like who like that's science yeah you know, like okay, like why, why didn't we talk about that? Why, why didn't we like have our elected officials?

Speaker 1: 1:33:34

so these are these are the experts these are the experts saying that you, that children, who are infants, should be getting 70-something vaccines in the first couple years of their life. Those are the experts. But those experts are also getting paid by those corporations and all that stuff. So when you start looking at this stuff you're like but this is all being forced. How many businesses, how many people went out of business. This is all being forced. How many businesses, how many people, went out of business?

Speaker 1: 1:34:06

People missed like weren't you were told you couldn't go see your family member Like I saw that video coming out of like the UK or something and they were at like their family member's funeral and then one person came over and sat down to the other family member to condole them and some security guard, police officer comes walking up and is like hey, you can't, you six feet, six feet. And pushes them away and removes the two mourning.

Speaker 1: 1:34:27

You know family members yeah okay, so you guys can live in the same freaking house, but you can't sit next to each other at a, at a funeral, like know six feet, in the lobby of the airport. But you can sit right next to the dude on the airplane. Wear the mask unless you're eating, like who the hell comes up with this shit?

Speaker 2: 1:34:49

And who could you challenge at the time? Yeah, how could you challenge it?

Speaker 1: 1:34:52

But these are the experts, yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:34:54

And their biggest thing is well, you don't have to fly, you don't have to fly on an airplane. Yep, you thing is is well, you don't have to fly, you don't have to fly on an airplane. Yeah, you know, if you don't want to wear a mask, don't fly on an airplane. Well, that's weird, because we have a constitutional right to travel. You're not allowed to impede it. So now you got an agency that's impeding your constitutional right to travel by forcing you to have to wear a mask. Well, it's just. It's just a little. I mean, it's for the safety. The science shows that these masks are going to start. Okay, maybe the science does show that, but show us the science that shows it. Persuade us that we all need to wear masks on an airplane. I'm not saying we shouldn't wear masks on an airplane, I'm just saying persuade us that your opinion is right. Right, the power to persuade versus the power to control.

Speaker 2: 1:35:39

This Loper Bright Enterprises specifically speaks to this issue. Before, under Chevron, the agencies had the full power to control. They didn't have to persuade you. They told you how it was going to be and you couldn't. You had no material way of challenging that.

Speaker 2: 1:35:52

Now, specifically and I'll quote this from the Loper Bright Enterprises case. In an agency case in particular, the court will go about its tasks now with the agency's body of experience and informed judgment among other information at its disposal. And although an agency's interpretation of a statute cannot bind a court, it may be especially informative to the extent it rests on factual premises within the agency's expertise. Such expertise has always been one of the factors which may give an executive branch interpretation particular power to persuade, if lacking power to control. So they're saying they're specifically recognizing, when you see these articles coming out from the LA Times or whoever saying the supreme court thinks it's smarter than scientific experts. No, they're never saying that. They've never said that. They're never saying don't follow the silence. They're never saying science is bullshit. They never say that anywhere. They say now, if you want us to follow your rules, come and persuade us, show us your facts, show us your evidence. Maybe you're right.

Speaker 1: 1:37:02

Yeah, I still remember. I still remember talking about the persuasion, right. It's just the irony of you know the people who are saying that this was good for them to be able to do this stuff right and like these experts because everyone goes to like all experts and trust the science. They love using that to basically gaslight you yeah, into oppressing yourself. No, I'm, I still remember. It was like marlboro or camel, right, I forget the company, but I remember the ads.

Speaker 1: 1:37:42

It was like oh, the number one cigarette choice of doctors yeah like your doctor's number one cigarette choice and it was like they were promoting smoking and saying that it was healthy, it was good for you. You know, uh, dude, they had my mom when she was in high school. They smoked in school and I remember the old planes, like they were still around when we were young and traveling. The armrests inside planes had freaking, uh ashtrays in them and cars had ashtrays in them now I remember they're just like dried gum stuck in there now, yeah, yeah that's it, they would always get that but it wasn't even till too long ago that all cars came with a cigarette lighter and an ashtray right

Speaker 1: 1:38:26

right. But at that time, those same food, drug administration and these people who were the scientists and the experts told everyone that cigarettes were perfectly fine for you, that they were actually great and you should have no problem. And these are the same people then are promoting us that high fructose corn syrup is great. You know what? Canola oil is a better alternative than butter. You know what I mean? They just debunked the food pyramid. My entire childhood, growing up, you had the food pyramid. And now they're saying dude, the food pyramid is completely wrong.

Speaker 1: 1:39:12

This is creating more health disasters, right? All these seed oils and all these synthetic versions of food are causing such health issues, but these are all being pushed forward and enforced right and regulated by the same companies that were getting all their power through this same chevron doctrine yeah, and to that point exactly I'll quote loper bright enterprises, right.

Speaker 2: 1:39:36

Four decades after Chevron's inception, chevron has thus become an impediment rather than an aid to accomplishing the basic judicial task of saying what the law is. Chevron has not been the sort of stable background rule that fosters meaningful reliance. If you relied on the food pyramid your entire life to realize that that whole thing's been turned on its head now, and if we let experts dictate what we have to intake as far as foods on a daily level, right, that'd be disastrous. Right, that'd be that'd be horrific, you know? Or any of these examples, right? If we let, if we let these experts control us in this regard? Well, the science changes all the time.

Speaker 1: 1:40:22

We've seen that yeah, they're trying to do it right now with all this lab-grown meat they're trying bill gates is out there trying to convince everyone that lab-grown meat is a better source of protein, it's healthier, right, and they're making all this synthetic. You know shit right they get.

Speaker 2: 1:40:39

Imagine, if they just that they forced that on you. Yeah, they're, they were trying to. Yeah, yeah, and chevron would have let them yeah you know I mean it's, it's super frustrating.

Speaker 2: 1:40:49

And again, right again, back to we're not. By no means am I saying scientists are wrong. By no means am I saying don't trust experts, right? That's not the message that's getting pushed here, because obviously you want to eat healthy. We want to know what healthy food is. We want to figure that out. We want to have a healthy debate over that. We don't want to over fish the oceans. We don't want to over hunt the woods. We don't want to over pollute the rivers. We don't want to over pollute the air, right, but what is pollution? What do we define as pollution? What, right, but what is pollution? What do we define as pollution? What's an acceptable level? What's not an acceptable level? Maybe there's no acceptable level, but where, as a society, do we stand on this? Why do we have one, one agency under one roof? Tell us what it is and we have no way of questioning it and no way of challenging it what is?

Speaker 1: 1:41:36

what did nbc? What was their article? What did they say?

Speaker 2: 1:41:40

msnbc. Yeah, yeah, their headline was massive power grab by scotus. Scotus, being the supreme court of the united states, throws out decades of established law right, that was their headline.

Speaker 1: 1:41:52

That was like very, very misleading headline very misleading headline.

Speaker 2: 1:41:56

First off, let's talk about it right. So msnbc recognizes that there's a lot of power that was just grabbed. Well, if it was grabbed back by SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, that inherently means that the agencies had all that massive power.

Speaker 1: 1:42:09

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:42:09

So, first off, if you're going to grab a massive amount of power, it's got to be from somewhere, and if they grabbed it from the agencies, that means the agencies had a massive amount of power. And then let's go to the second part of that headline. Scotus throws out decades of established law. Okay, it's 40 years old, but what about chevron? What did it do to the 208 years of established law prior to chevron? It completely turned out on its head.

Speaker 1: 1:42:34

Nobody was bitching about that yeah, they're like well, we've had it for 40 years, we can't not have it because this is. It's been decades, but it's like, dude, you had centuries of established law before you slipped this thing in and just let it metastasize into this huge overbearing monstrosity that you put.

Speaker 2: 1:42:55

You know tyranny across the every single aspect of our entire lives yeah and look, I mean, look, these are really, at the end of the day, these are surface level, emotionally uh drawn responses designed to stir emotions amongst uninformed people. Right, by labeling things and gaslighting it, or calling it science, or gaslighting you and saying that you know you trust the science. How dare you? Blah, blah, blah. You're killing people by not wearing a mask. All those things aren't constitutionally based arguments. All it is is emotionally based arguments. Right, the dissent tries and grab uninformed people to support the dissenting opinion. Chevron allowed unelected officials to create, enforce and interpret laws, even when a law was silent as to what that power given to that particular agency was completely contrary to the 10th Amendment and also to the Administrative Procedure Act and also the entire way our government was originally separated into three branches of government for the first 208 years. It was completely contrary to all of that. Now again, it's been almost an entire generation of us living under Chevron. We've never really known. I've never known any different.

Speaker 1: 1:44:05

No, you don't know any different, just like our kids don't know any different when they have grown up the last the people who have been around in the last 15 years. They've become accustomed to they're constantly being filmed, that there's security cameras on houses, there's security cameras on stores, there's cameras on traffic lights, there's cameras at the government, there's cameras everywhere. You know what I mean. So when you hear something like, oh, if you have nothing to hide, you know like we want to see this or know this about you. If you don't have anything to hide, what's? What are you worried about?

Speaker 1: 1:44:47

And understanding that, like you have the right to privacy in a generation where everything is being recorded, you don't even realize that there was a time when people had privacy and you weren't trying to hide anything. It's just dude, this is none of your business. You know what I mean. Now, everything's like hey, it's everybody's business, everything about your life, given, even what you had for breakfast, lunch and everything like that. Everything's everyone's business and you need to share it all the time and it's just expected. At this point it's kind of like the same thing with this. You know us living under this type of you know government usage right, or the way that they've been handling themselves. You, you have the idea that you're living in this free country, but subconsciously everyone is like dude. We're really not that free. I don't understand how this is land of the free, home of the brave.

Speaker 1: 1:45:54

But it just doesn't seem like it makes sense, because other people I have lots of people who come here from other countries to train and like america's amazing man, you guys have like as many roles and all this stuff as we do. In fact, some of some of the people who come here from other countries are like wow, you guys are way more strict than where we are.

Speaker 2: 1:46:11

Yeah, yeah absolutely I thought america was like the the home of the free back to my situation in the geneva airport, where they were just selling knives right before you got on the plane. Like it was just like they looked at me. Weird that I was looking at them weird. They're like what do you? What do you mean? You're like, of course you sell knives before you get on airplanes. You know. It's like, oh, okay, well, that's interesting, right?

Speaker 2: 1:46:31

Well, most notably, though, the dissent in Loper Bright, enter enterprises doesn't attempt at all to explain how Chevron is a form of democracy or even republic. Right, they dance around that issue. They really pin it down on the fact that you know, they're looking at this. Especially the LA Times, the MSNBC and all these people are like judges are not experts in these fields. We need to rely on these experts, okay, well, that doesn't. You're not explaining to me how this is a democratic way of doing it. You're not explaining to me how this is a way of doing it that's confined within the boundaries of our constitution.

Speaker 2: 1:47:08

Maybe the experts are right, maybe they have a very valid reason and very valid evidence to support their reason, but why, why and how can they dictate to us how we are going to operate, right? Well, we saw. Look at it again back to covid19. If your science is so good, then why not just prove it? Why not persuade us, as opposed to force us to agree with you and belittle us if we oppose you? Right, history has shown us that science has changed so much over time. Right, dr Fauci was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we all know how tyrannical our system became during those times. And as just you stated earlier, right, I mean they're coming out now. Where'd this six foot rule come from? Oh, we just kind of made it up. What do you mean? You're an expert. Where's the facts? Where's the facts behind this?

Speaker 1: 1:48:01

Yeah. Then when he has in one video is saying that we need to do a mask and separate six feet and you're safe if you have the vaccine.

Speaker 2: 1:48:10

Then next one is like okay, if you have the vaccine, you'll never get COVID. I distinctly remember them coming.

Speaker 1: 1:48:15

That was the very first thing they did and then so them coming that was the very first thing they did and then so then, because he flip-flopped on all this stuff, everyone it was like you need to wear the mask, then you need to wear the mask just indoors, you don't need it outdoors. It was all these different every couple months. It changed and and his take on it later on was yeah, you know, science changes and it's like okay, so one minute you're telling me trust the science, the. The next minute you're saying science changes, right, and but where's the data that you're pulling the stuff and the thing of it is is there was no data.

Speaker 1: 1:48:49

So you know, you have a lot of people who and he basically at one point said that he is the science- he's like you got to trust me.

Speaker 1: 1:48:57

You know, if you don't trust me, you don't trust science yeah and or if you don't believe in me, you don't believe in science. And again, like you're talking about, like there's no data, show me the, show me the scientific data. Let me see the, the fucking, the, the pie chart or the graph where it shows the mask. Stops this thing, that blah, blah, blah at the distance of six feet, because if you cough or you breathe, particles only travel so far, or they're in a potency that can be not absorbed, or blah, blah, blah. Like where is this? How did you come to that conclusion? And there is nothing.

Speaker 2: 1:49:36

They won't even go there, right, they wouldn't go there. Their response a lot of the times, right and and and I got this. I'm sure you got this a lot of the typical responses when you wouldn't, when me or anyone would propose a logical question like that, the responses was you're, you're a conspiracy theorist, like like you're selfish right, you're killing a lot of people by not wearing this mask.

Speaker 2: 1:49:57

Again, I don't want to kill anybody, right? If I need to wear a mask, prove to me. I know I'll wear a mask. I'm not above wearing a mask, but why? Why prove it to me. Don't tell me I have to and then shame me if I don't. You know what I'm saying. It's like okay, if, if, if, by me not wearing a mask is going to go out and kill people because I'm going to spread COVID-19,. I don't want to do that. So that's where that's. That's. If we want to make this a rule, then let's. Let's go ahead, present the evidence, convince us that we all need to wear masks. Go ahead, the floor is yours, right, and they would never go down that road. The road was you. You, how dare you question the science? You think you're smarter than the science? You think you're smarter than the scientist? No, I'm not. No, I'm a human being like we know once you created it right, right, you know.

Speaker 2: 1:50:50

It's like you know they can draw surface level arguments like, well, if you catch all the fish, you're gonna you're gonna over fish and you're gonna destroy the fish population. No shit, you know. So yeah, we probably need to regulate that. But like, why are we paying this guy's salary?

Speaker 2: 1:51:03

like I thought the federal government was gonna pay for that. Like, why are you forcing me to pay this guy's? You know, it's like these are the types of things they get down in these little nooks and crannies. Right, you know from this, the chevron doctrine, it works. It's all the way down to a fishing vessel from the national marine Fisheries thing all the way to 2020, about $710 a day. Like that's the tip of the spear on the Chevron Doctrine and that specific agency. You can look at any agency and all the little nooks and crannies they've worked their fingers into and it's like are they even allowed to be there? Why are they here? Maybe they are. Maybe they're allowed to be here. Maybe they came to the right conclusion by being here. Maybe they're in the worst. Maybe they came to a horrible conclusion and they're forcing it on us.

Speaker 2: 1:51:46

Anyways, you know these are the types of things we are going to have to, as a society, grapple with these now, right, unfortunately, what I think is going to happen is well, what I know has just happened is there's a huge power void that's just been created by this, by the overturning Chevron. There's a huge power void. That just a vacuum that just occurred. I don't think most people know about it. I know the government knows about it because they're the ones that got stripped of the power. Typically, what happens whenever there's a huge void in power is is usually they'll start working their fingers back into it somehow way, shape or form and try to grab it again. Right, and that's. That's unfortunately a scary thing that I think we're going to probably see over the next few years, maybe the next few days or weeks or months, or I don't know. You know you're going to see. I don't think any of these agencies are going to operate any differently right now.

Speaker 1: 1:52:35

Yeah, and they're probably going to try to start convincing us that, uh, we need them and that we should allow them to have these authorities and all that kind of stuff, and I think that becomes a very important. One of the reasons why I wanted to do this episode with you is is, like we need to know what our rights are and how the rights were being violated in this unconstitutional uh, you know power grab originally and now we need to be basically fight to put the right people in power to uh, to keep this thing in check. You know what I I mean. Like, if you're, if, if parents are upset with the department of education, this is the opportunity to get the department of education in check.

Speaker 1: 1:53:29

If you're in the 2A community and and you're having problems with the, with the ATF, because ATF again, originally the ATF was designed to go after people who are illegally selling guns the ATF agent that helped me get my FFL set up for the company. She's like when she came into it, you know, 20, 30 years ago. She's like we were focused on getting the bad guys. We were focused on getting the bad guys and we worked in partnership with gun stores and gun companies and the people who had the ffls, like your federal firearms license right like a dealer, she's like, because those are the ones who are doing it by the book. So my, my job this is her speaking. You know, when working with someone like you who's setting up a gun store, my job was to educate you and help you navigate how to do this legally and Go after the bad guys and take them to court, you know, for the crimes they've committed.

Speaker 1: 1:54:38

Now she's like I'm retiring, I'm getting out of this, she's like yeah she's like now there were not so much tasked with going after the bad guys as much as they're being essentially what we would call weaponized, to go find people who have gun shops. Right, we're trying to push back against the Second Amendment. Right, we want to disarm the population, but we have to figure out how to do it. So now these agents are going to gun shops and people who have FFLs and they're going. Hey, man, it's an $1,100 fine If you filled out your paperwork and you forgot to check if you were male or female or whatever, right, um?

Speaker 1: 1:55:22

Or, for example, they have a new form that has non-binary, male, female, non-binary. If I used the old form, when it was just male or female and didn't give you the option to do non-binary, then that form that's an eleven hundred dollar fine. If someone forgot to put in a phone number, forgot to check a box or whatever, per violation, per like discrepancy, it would be like eleven hundred dollar, fine. And then basically they do an audit of all the gun transactions and all this stuff and basically, oh, you forgot to put this here, you forgot to do this.

Speaker 1: 1:55:57

That you know, instead of like checking, like yeah, dude, okay, the you know they didn't check if they were white caucasian, or white hispanic, white non-hispanic or whatever, like, um, they basically come in and be like hey, dude, we just look, overlooked your stuff. You have, uh, 16 violations. You're gonna owe us, um, you know, uh, seventeen thousand six hundred dollars, uh, or if you can't pay that, then you're gonna, we're gonna have to shut down your ffl you know, so now you're like in this position where it's like dude, dude, there's no guns missing, we have full accountability of everything.

Speaker 1: 1:56:41

But you have these little tiny clerical errors which have been remedied. We looked into it. The guns are all thing, everything's legit.

Speaker 2: 1:56:47

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:56:48

But now they're nitpicking. And how do you challenge that?

Speaker 2: 1:56:52

Right but again.

Speaker 1: 1:56:53

The agency in the beginning was set up to help fight crime right and now it's being targeted against people who are law-abiding citizens, right and and challenging the same things happening with like the irs well it goes.

Speaker 2: 1:57:10

You know, it goes like back to the whole thing that we were talking about in one of the other podcasts, right? I think it was in the last one, right? Like we are at this point. If Chevron was decided in 1984, I would dare to say that essentially, a government job span is about 20 to 30 years. Somebody is going to be in an agency for 20 to 30 years, maybe longer in some instances, but I think that's probably around when pensions start kicking in. People get out and then they go do something else and then they get their pension and everything like that, right?

Speaker 2: 1:57:42

Well, if we're looking at it that way, the people that were in charge of these agencies back in 1984, they're pretty much almost certainly all long gone out of those agencies at this point, right, I'm sure maybe there's a few still hanging around, but by and large most of them are gone. And then the group that came in after them if we're following the 20 to 30 year rule, most of those guys and girls are long gone too. And now we're into a new generation, if you will, right? So you're born into this system. We've never been shown or taught anything different. We're not used to anything different right. And it kind of begs the question again of what if you thought you were fighting to uphold freedom, but instead we're protecting those who are advancing tyranny?

Speaker 1: 1:58:24

Yeah, I mean, look at all these videos coming out of James O'Keefe, with all this hidden camera stuff. There's hundreds of videos that he has where they have people working for, in many cases, big corporations, but there's a lot of people who are working for government agencies that exposing how they're using the agencies to manipulate and push forward. You know different agendas, whether it's the dei stuff or it's, you know um different mandates or or you know all the stuff we've been talking about. You know what I mean. And these are all these young people who think socialism is cool.

Speaker 2: 1:59:05

Or even if they don't think socialism is cool, right, like well, we're doing it for national security. Okay, yeah, national security is a good topic. Yeah, we should talk about national security. But the manner in how we go about doing it are we going to go do it in a tyrannical way? Are we going to do it in a democratic or a republic way? We all agree that we should secure our nation. Oh, I think most of us agree that, right, I don't know who's listening to this podcast, but you know, if we all agree that we should secure our nation, awesome, let's do it the right way. Let's not do it in a tyrannical way. Let's not do it by saying, yeah, you know what? We're going to just collect everyone's electronic data that gets submitted through the internet, whether or not it's secured or not. We're just going to collect it all.

Speaker 2: 1:59:49

Okay, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Tell me how it's not. And they never explain how it's not. It's not right. And they never explain how it's not. They're just like, well, the supreme court says you can do it now. Well, no, that's not. You're not telling me how it's, uh, how it's, how you're able to navigate around the fourth amendment right, all you're telling me is that you're doing it because it's in the interest of national security.

Speaker 1: 2:00:08

Right, okay, the that goes back into the thing. Well, if you don't have anything to hide, what do you care?

Speaker 2: 2:00:13

right and all those are surface level arguments. Those are all surface level arguments. Back to this if we're going to have a constitution to set the parameters, we shouldn't be able to pick and choose when the government's going to follow it. Right, and maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing. Right again, agencies can act a hell of a lot quicker than congress or the legislature can in a lot of these circumstances. Right, you go back Pearl Harbor. When we got attacked by Japan, we had to act quick. Right, it took a while before world war was actually declared. That's probably a bad thing from a national security standpoint. So we got to find this healthy balance between the two. Right, we were training CQB earlier in the day and the one thing that a close quarter, you know, like the room clearing stuff earlier today and by no means am I even remotely, even I wouldn't consider myself moderate on that, but in that other event, you kept bringing up this thing and correct me if I'm wrong. It's if you're gonna go, go, but if you're not don't, don't right.

Speaker 1: 2:01:08

You're gonna go dynamic and go all in, yeah, or you're gonna go slow, methodical and and take it as it is and I see the same thing with the constitution.

Speaker 2: 2:01:16

If we're going to follow it, follow it. If you're not, not. But we better figure out a system we can all agree on, as opposed to picking and choosing. Maybe, well, we're going to get around the fourth amendment for this, the tenth amendment, we're just going to ignore that. I mean, I don't even want to try to reconcile that.

Speaker 1: 2:01:35

If I was actually here that some of them say like, oh well, you know the, they didn't know when they did the second amendment they were going to have these weapons of war, right. But then again you're like, okay well, when they're talking about the printing press, they didn't know we were going to have twitter we can do this all day long, you know like. So you can't pick exactly, choose when you want to use them.

Speaker 2: 2:01:57

You know exactly yeah, you're absolutely right, it's. They're surface level arguments, you know, and it's like we you really got to get in grapple with this stuff. You know to say that. Well, the second amendment only applies to the weapons. At the time the second amendment was passed, cool. Well, if you're going to use that argument, you better apply it to the rest of the constitution too, since then the first amendment only applies to print and presses. Then it doesn't apply to your phone, doesn't apply to your computer or anything like that, you know. So it's again if you're gonna go, go.

Speaker 1: 2:02:25

If you're not, don't yep, because when you play in the middle ground, that's when all the bad stuff happens yep so that's interesting. What do you think? You know, I kind of said my piece on. I think this is really important for people to understand, because they're going to try to take it back.

Speaker 2: 2:02:41

Sure.

Speaker 1: 2:02:41

They're going to try to get this power back. They don't want to give it up. No one ever wants to give up the power that they've had, especially if they've had it for 40 years. Like you mentioned, the people that we entrusted with this in the beginning are not the same people who are still there running the show.

Speaker 1: 2:02:55

Correct with this in the beginning are not the same people who are still there running the show, correct? It's a new breed, or not a new breed, but it's a new generation, a new line of people who are in there you know what I mean who might not be as honest as and with the same intentions of. You know, some people look at this and go, oh man, you know, uh, look at all the the ways we can leverage this right. And they look at this dangerous and they look at the the ways we can leverage this right.

Speaker 2: 2:03:16

Yeah, that's a dangerous thing and they look at the Constitution as something to work around.

Speaker 1: 2:03:20

How do we work around this?

Speaker 2: 2:03:21

How do we catch this bad guy? How can I skirt this and still catch this bad guy, or how? Do we get more tax revenue.

Speaker 1: 2:03:31

How do we use this and leverage it so we can get more revenue? Because we got this other project that we want to do and whatnot. So my takeaway from this is one understanding what our rights are to begin with and how they were violated, that the ball is back in our court. How do we maintain that ball, you know, and keep those liberties that made America a free country right? How do we keep that? What are what are some of your thoughts for the? For everyone listening, you know, kind of moving forward, you know now that we understand this and we understand how bad that was and like holy shit, we were just in this super toxic relationship and we just had this breakup like, oh man, now let's look back at how toxic, how toxic was this whole mess?

Speaker 1: 2:04:24

yeah are we gonna walk back into another toxic relationship?

Speaker 2: 2:04:27

we're gonna get our shit straight so, first off, I'd say you know, don't be uh, don't be distressed with any surface level arguments you may get thrown in your face, right, like how dare you not want to trust the science? How dare you think you're smarter than a scientist? Right, like all these sorts of things, they're just designed to belittle, they're just designed to try to oppress you, right? Unless it specifically addresses how it navigates safely through the Constitution without violating it, it's all bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Right, it's all designed to just belittle you or shut you up or try to intimidate you so that you just back down and walk away and then they're the louder voice in the room, right? So don't be intimidated by that Two.

Speaker 2: 2:05:07

You got to really pay attention to who's in the legislature right now. The legislature has a history and I'm not saying this is right or wrong. The legislature has a history of just kicking the can over to the agency, saying you know what? I don't know much about fishing, but we got to do something about it. So we're going to have these guys over here, the National Marine Fishery Agency, figure it out. Okay, all right, maybe that's a good thing, probably is a good thing, right, but what kind of authority are they going to delegate to it? Are they just going to tell them straight up now that they can go ahead and force domestic vessels to have mandatory observers on board and they have to pay their salaries?

Speaker 2: 2:05:46

Okay, well, who? These legislators are elected? They're elected officials. So why? Why are we going to do that? Confront them about this sort of stuff? Right? This specific example, sure, but any example, you know. Like that, they're at the forefront. Now it's in their hands again to decide what they want to do with it. We're going to sit down this time and we're going to list out every single thing that has come up over the last 248 years. And we're going to list it all out and we're going to delegate it all to the agency. And now the courts can't do anything about it because we specifically expressly delegated all to the agency, right?

Speaker 1: 2:06:34

That's. That would put us right back into the situation we are now.

Speaker 2: 2:06:36

That's probably what they're going to try to do. That's probably what they're going to try to do for sure, especially on bits and pieces and on a long enough trajectory, even if they chiseled away back at the rights that got back onto the Constitution side, if you will, on the people's side, even if they chiseled away with it. Fast forward 80 years, right.

Speaker 1: 2:06:54

What would that?

Speaker 2: 2:06:55

look like forward 80 years, right? What would that look like? Over every couple months it got chiseled away more and then that generation is just born into whatever that you know vastly astray society that may be at that point, right? So again, don't be afraid of any surface level arguments that may people try to throw up in your face against this. Pay attention to the legislatures right now in exactly what they're going to do. That's going to be very telling and I can tell you what not to do right now is is don't go up and get in a TSA agent's face and be like you. I can interfere with you. Blah, blah, blah. You're just going to get arrested and then you're going to go. You know they're going to lock you up and then you're going to have to challenge it and you're going to be in the court system for years. At that point you know there's a good chance a court will probably side with you eventually. But don't do that. You know it's more of now.

Speaker 2: 2:07:46

The go to the legislature and let's talk to the legislature. Say, hey, let's look at what happened during COVID, how vastly astray this went. Do we really want to delegate this over or do we want to have a specific law that specifically says the agency cannot make a rule on this? Why don't we close that door instead of maybe leaving it open for a future generation to go through? Why not close that door off but leave a caveat and say something to the effect of however you know they're not allowed to do this under any circumstances. We, the agent I'm sorry, the legislature can decide to do this. However, we will revisit this topic every six months or whatever interval is appropriate, based off the circumstances, to look at the then current science and facts, to see if we want to change our mind and legislate new laws and keep the power with the legislature at that point.

Speaker 1: 2:08:43

Yeah, I hope it goes somewhere along those lines you know what I mean and that it doesn't just get sucked right back in and repackaged in a new way, Because you know they're going to try to do it. I mean you see Biden's running on. He's going to reinstate Roe v Wade, so I don't know how he thinks the Supreme Court decides on something and then he's just going to go change it.

Speaker 1: 2:09:11

I don't know how he thinks he has authority to do that. But you can see, with things like that they don't like the ruling of the supreme court which we talked about, that on one of the previous episodes and and that whole thing with roe v wade. Yeah, like yeah that should be handled in the states right like that has nothing to do with the federal government right you know, I mean the federal government shouldn't be overseeing that again.

Speaker 2: 2:09:34

If you're gonna go, go. If you're gonna stay, stay right. If we're gonna be a democracy, be a democracy. If we're gonna be a republic, be a republic. If we're gonna be a tyrannical system, be a tyrannical system. This wishy-washy we're gonna pick and choose when we want to apply these certain things. That that doesn't really give much stability in the law. Yeah, and for us as a society, that's not stable.

Speaker 1: 2:09:55

It's not so we'll see what they do, but at least, uh, everyone now has a better understanding of of what that case was, why that ruling was so important and, um, and maybe, maybe we can start to see that we have just got out of a very toxic relationship. Yeah, yeah, that's a very good way of putting it and we can make some better decisions next time around.

Speaker 2: 2:10:23

They're going to keep texting you. They're going to keep texting you. They're going to call you, they're going to love you. They're going to say they miss you.

Speaker 1: 2:10:28

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 2:10:29

They were sorry.

Speaker 1: 2:10:30

Yeah, you're the best.

Speaker 2: 2:10:37

You know we the best.

Speaker 1: 2:10:38

You know we're gonna do it different next, right, right, right, it's not gonna be. I'm sorry, yeah. So hopefully, hopefully, the american people don't fall for that crap and wind up back in the same position but also wind up back in a the a worse position, because the government's gonna look at this. These agencies are are to protect themselves. You have a government class, now, right, which self-perpetuates more government. You know what I mean. The more the government can and these agencies can communicate or come up with ways to show that they're important, right, they're going to that they're important, right, they're going to ask for more money, more authority, so that they can do more stuff. You know what I mean.

Speaker 1: 2:11:22

Every single government agency, doesn't matter which one you work for, at the end of every fiscal year, they like when I was in the navy, they would. At the end of the fiscal year, everyone would just get gear from the supply anything that was extra. Like, hey, take this. Hey, you want extra camelback? Hey, here's leatherman, here's five freaking flashlights. We don't care, give them to your family members for christmas, you know? I mean like they would dump inventory so they could basically go look, we're out of gear. So we don't run out of gear next year, we need more money, right, and that's like one of the things like with you know law enforcement and these federal agencies like, well, you don't want to fix and stop the drug trafficking.

Speaker 2: 2:12:14

Right.

Speaker 1: 2:12:14

If we stop all the drugs and there is no more drugs, think of how much revenue we would lose, right, if there was no drugs. Because we make money, you know we. We get to argue our importance. We get money off of those fines. You know there's all these other rules and regulations that we get to enforce to help get the drugs off the streets, and the. You know the um, there's war on crime and all this stuff. So there's the. The agencies are always looking for ways to, you know, basically solidify their existence and then also grow their power and their the size right so they can do more work. You know what I mean. And the only thing that we have to realize is that they're going to see this and not only try to get the power back, but the way they try to get the power back, I can almost guarantee it's going to work like this they're going to try to get the power back in a way that ensures that they don't lose it again.

Speaker 2: 2:13:13

Sure for sure.

Speaker 1: 2:13:14

And actually get more power because of that. They're going to have more power and more authority right on the tail end if we don't handle it correctly.

Speaker 2: 2:13:24

Yeah, you see like waving back and forth, right, Like I don't know how to articulate this particular principle, but like a pendulum, if you will right. The pendulum just snapped back on the opposite side of agencies in the federal government right, and if they're going to try to grab it back forcefully, that's a violent snapback, that's a forceful, you know, very powerful snapback at that point. Those types of things and you see them throughout history. Powerful snapback at that point. Those types of things and you see them throughout history uh are very concerning, you know.

Speaker 1: 2:13:59

Yeah, hopefully the states will wake up and start taking some of these authorities or some of these responsibilities back to a state level, because most of this stuff was never actually, uh, assigned like. This was never part of, like, the federal responsibility yeah and again, like you know, comes into, like the commerce clause right yeah, the commerce clause is the one thing that opened up the.

Speaker 1: 2:14:22

The same thing, like with chevron, is to all this. The commerce clause is to the federal government having the door open so they could do the, the, the chevron clause I think that was our first podcast was talking about the commerce clause and specifically the way the ATF was founded.

Speaker 2: 2:14:36

right and just to shortcut that, there's a Supreme Court case that basically said that. Well, the constitution reads that Congress shall regulate the commerce between the states and for the longest time throughout American history, american history, that unless the trade good, whatever that good was, whether it was a cow, a car, oranges, lemons, whatever right, whatever it was selling, if it crossed state lines, congress could step in and regulate that. But if it stayed in between the state, if it was a locally grown orange here in Florida and it was sold at the local farmer's market here in Florida, for the longest time Congress couldn't step in and regulate that. Well, the Supreme Court eventually came in and said well, now, specifically in this case, uh, in the case that extended or broadened the commerce clause, specifically, the Supreme Court came in and this guy was growing and harvesting his own wheat in his own property and he was I think he was using it at his own table or selling it right down the local store or something.

Speaker 2: 2:15:48

I don't remember off the top of my head, but it was all local, it was all very much in the same community and the Supreme Court reasoned that because that guy was now affecting interstate commerce, because he was no longer purchasing wheat for himself because he grew it for himself, wheat could have come in from another state line. Therefore it's affecting interstate commerce. Therefore, the Commerce Clause can now reach in and regulate, uh, how that guy is going to grow wheat, uh, in his backyard right and and the atf that was breathed into life specifically because of that rolling, specifically because of that particular rolling, with that dude who grew wheat in his own backyard and again I forget if he either used it as his own table or sold it to the local store down the road that is so they're saying.

Speaker 2: 2:16:38

Because there wasn't interstate commerce, it could have affected that interstate the fact that it affected yeah what a roundabout bunch of bullshit because this guy should have and maybe he was going to buy wheat from another state. We don't know where that wheat was going to come from, but it could have come from another state. It could affect interstate commerce. Therefore, the commerce clause now extends all the way to your kitchen table. It's insanity.

Speaker 1: 2:17:05

Yeah, and that's still in the books yeah, that's I mean chevron's overruled, but that one's still in the book. That one's still in the books, but that's the one that opened up the pandora's box.

Speaker 2: 2:17:13

That's the trojan horse, really the atf would have never come. Well, maybe it would have come into existence eventually through another channel, but that's the channel, the atf. And not to keep picking on the atf, but like, obviously that's popular to your crowd, right? That's what, specifically, the channel that the atf was breathed in the life through, yeah, it's wild.

Speaker 1: 2:17:35

Well, I appreciate you coming back on and sharing this insight and just giving everyone an in-depth look at what all this entailed.

Speaker 2: 2:17:47

Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1: 2:17:48

And what it means for them. Cool, well, I appreciate it, guys. So thank you for tuning in to the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast. If you liked this episode, go ahead. I appreciate it, guys. So thank you for tuning in to the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast. If you like this episode, go ahead like it, follow us on there and share it with a friend.

Speaker 1: 2:18:03

Obviously, we talked about a lot of throttled topics and used words that are bad words. You know what I mean. So, obviously, the the throttling and the shadow banning of our content will continue because they don't like what we're saying. So we need you guys to help spread the word. So if you found this to be useful, share it with a friend, let them know and and yeah, man, we appreciate you tuning in once again the Full Spectrum Warriors podcast is sponsored by the all-American Patriot brand Grunt Style, and we appreciate their support. And if you want to check out their clothing line, head on over to gruntstylecom and you can use code RICH15 for 15% off your order. So again, guys, thanks for tuning in and we'll have you back on the next one.