I was an offshore commercial fisherman for 25 years. I loved it. I got tired of government control I gave up. They regulated me out of business with nonsensical laws.
Manufacturing facilities don't have to pay the salary of OSHA personnel... Why should fishermen? Also, the inspectors should be on shore when the boats come back; not looking over their shoulders 24/7... an unfair and unequal application of the law.
If you think the differences in pollution, food contamination, drug regulation and overfishing from the days before regulations is better you need to think again.
@@blacksquirrel4008 Yes, it's always better to have unelected bureaucrats be installed as policy makers to govern us with out representation or recourse. Its how gun stocks without any moving parts, or a stamped bent piece of metal becomes a machine gun. Also there's the issue of how these federal agencies can change their minds ignoring the input of millions of Americans affected making millions of people felons without Congressional approval...as did BATF. Basically this the same as civil asset forfeiture...police see a wad of cash, declare it's part of potential criminal activity without ever proving in court that a crime was committed, or often without ever a charge being filed, but then "submit" the money to the FBI and then reclaim a portion of the money "recovered"...and everyone is happy...except the guy that has to take the government to court or outright "lose" the money simply because the amount is not great enough to justify the legal expenses of a court case with the US government with unlimited time and funding. The court can actually rule that the agency's stated/proposed policies are valid and lawful within the ambiguity of the law and the Chevron deference, and then the agency utterly changes their "lawful" policy to an what would have been an unlawful policy because they are now the de facto responsible policy makers.
@@blacksquirrel4008 it is not about regulations, but unlimited control by the executive branch without a check… The alternative is the Skidmore deference; which has in the context of administrative law, is a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions that applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. In other words, the executive branch would seek approval from the judicial branch (an article three federal court)…
What's the alternative? Companies investigating themselves and pinky-promising they're following the rules? Oversight on small companies like a fishing boat can and should be govt funded instead of making the business pay, but that should be rare and case by case. There absolutely has to be a default stance of making companies pay their own actual cost of doing business. There absolutely has to be walls in place so huge companies don't gain benefits on the same problems they are causing, the first thing they will try to do is bribe someone to slap the small business label on them, or claim that since they have a small presence in some state/country that it's appropriate for them.
@@jbutler8585 At first you're talking more broadly yet you're maintaining a narrow scope...confusing. Think about it this way, which "violation" would you prefer...a (some) company violating some rules like bribing the "monitor" they're already paying for, or a US agency violating all of our rights. Remember when conservatives became the focus of Obama's IRS and EPA, if you're turned off by that narrative, flip it, how about some republican admin focusing on "liberals". Interpretive policies can be changed by Executive branches' political supporters rewarded by political appointments...unless congress corrects the ambiguous language making it law not open to interpretation.
This will help the commercial trawlers more than the single boat captains. Like all fishing regulations do. Small fisherman will benefit some but they’re not the ones over fishing. It’s a red herring law. SCOTUS differing to corporate hegemony since Union Pacific days.
Perhaps NOAA should have thought about the ramifications of charging fisherman for NOAA observers, something for which congress allocated ZERO funds to NOAA. The over reach is typical and as such must be eliminated as the agencies NEVER learn their lesson.
@@TheJagjr4450 yes sir. These shitass bureaucrats dont deserve to be trusted with interpreting the law. I dont understand the cheveron deference shit at all. "oh lets ask the agency if theyre doing anything wrong".
Congress should tell you what they intended. It shouldn't be up to the agencies. If they can't tell you their intent and specifically line out what the legislation means, then it doesn't need to exist.
The issue is that Congress is dysfunctional and hardly ever passes anything. Situations change way faster than Congress can keep up with. Taking this out of agency hands will result in a government that can't accomplish much of anything.
I see the fishermen’s point… however, I also see the point of Chevron. The monitor/regulator of a fishing boat is not doing the boat’s business; he is doing the peoples’ business. Therefore, he should be paid by the people. But to possibly determine, based on this particular case, that the scope of,regulation itself should not be determined by regulators but by the courts? That would be an excessive overreach by the judiciary. And if they decide that the solution is no oversight at all, well…. Bhopal will occur again and again and again. But here, not there. In the case of these fishermen, it’s known that the resource is waaaay overfished. Take away regulation, and they will all be out of work in 15 years as there will be no fish left to catch.
No, it wouldn’t be an overreach since it’s actually the court’s job to do so. But this isn’t only on the courts. This is on Congress as well since they love passing vague legislation thus giving more power to these agencies. They know exactly what they are doing when they pass these legislations. The power of these agencies goes completely unchecked. That doesn’t mean they have to be completely abolished, but they need limits.
If you believe there won’t be any more fish left to catch, you are highly mistaken. Other countries are fishing freely as much as they want. There’s an abundant amount of fish in the sea. 🙄
@@thaijen that’s a ridiculous argument. It’s analogous to “China and India pollute as much as they want, therefore we shouldn’t constrain our industries”. I live on the coast. We used to be able to walk a hundred feet down to the bay, and grab mussels off the rocks and eat them. There are no mussels left anywhere in the region, except those that are ‘farmed’. Go read about the outright collapse of the Canadian Atlantic cod industry.
Legislators in Congress deferring law creation to bureaucrats in agencies is unacceptable. It is tyranny to have appointed unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats defining the law for we the people to follow. If the legislative branch can't be bothered to figure it out in detail, it should not be a law. We've got so many laws that one could not hope to be aware of them, and we're all guaranteed to be breaking some "law" every day.
That's bullshit. The strategy to destroy environmental regulatory bodies frames it as an executive authority issue, but that is simply because the Environmental Protection Agency is under Department of Interior and NOAA is under Department of Commerce. This is all a bullshit tactic to weaken environmental regulators just like Sackett V EPA was.
Truly spoken by somebody that has not worked in the public sector. Nothing can be completely defined in law, indefinitely. That's why there are rulemakings to update the law. And specifically in this case, if you want to fish you have to pay for the permitting and monitoring to do so. The same goes for discharging pollutants from manufacturing into the same water we drink. No one has the absolute right to pollute or take from public waterways. You can obtain a permit to do so and monitor to prove your meeting your permit requirements. You don't want to pay for the permit in the monitoring, then don't have a business that takes from or pollutes public waterways.
@@jisezer it's fine for the experts to provide testimony or suggest guidance for lawmaking, but Congress should vote on all legislation. The actual law must originate with our elected representatives, in it's complete detail.
Oh and, Congress passed legislation such as the clean Air act and clean water act that give authority, the responsibility, of passing federal regulations and keeping those regulations up-to-date on a scheduled basis to agencies such as the EPA. As I've always told those I've trained, "Know your regs!"
They're created by congress. If you don't like them, take it up with congress. It is up to congress to get rid of them if they are not desired. According to our constitution, we are not to be ruled over by unelected politicians, which is why the constitution, if you've ever read it, gives almost no power to the Supreme Court. They are not a "co-equal branch" they are basically just an agency under the actual, written constitution. They have no power to write federal laws or to veto them. They do it all the time anyway, because we do not have Rule of Law, we have Rule of Billionaire.
@@RagnarokeiroOrigi Congress does not have the expertise to make these laws. Who is a Congress person from South Carolina to say how much mercury is allowed in water or what drugs are constituted as controlled substances or sold over the counter? I understand you’re making a simple argument, but these are complicated issues, and they need more nuance.. this will be the end of modern civilization in the United States of America
@@mikeHamilton-w3x It doesn't matter, delegate law creation to a unelected official of the executive branch beyond the scope of what a executive official does.
The problem becomes then, who checks the power of the agencies? Who makes sure the agencies are acting in the best interest of the public and not in the best interest of themselves? Who makes sure that the rules, laws, definitions, etc are being enforced without discrimination, bias, fairly? Who makes sure the agency is applying their own rules equally to everyone? Who makes sure that if a ruling is made against someone for a fine or violation that that person or entity can reasonably challenge a decision without undue hardship or financial ruin. The answer is really no one. In hearing these cases the Supreme Court asked the EPA two simple questions related to the definition the agency routinely issue fines and violations on. How do you define a navigable waterway? What is the definition of a wetland? The EPA's own lead attorney could not give definitions. The Supreme Court showed concern that if they didn't know and had ruled differently in nearly identical situations how was the general public supposed to know how to follow the law?
Another issue is that the interpretation could change depending on the politics of the administration at any given time. An example of this is an ATF ruling on bump-stocks for rifles. Their original interpretation was that bump stocks do not make a rifle a machine gun. President Trump directed them to make bump stocks illegal and so they re- interpreted the rule/law to make them machine guns and therefore illegal. You may believe whatever you want about this act but it is unfair to the citizens when a government agency tells them something is legal to buy purchase or possess one day and then reverses course at some whim and say that same thing is now illegal, without the law having changed or some actual legal ruling. The simple solution is for the senate/congress to recognize the discrepancy and amend the law to address the discrepancy, rather than let an agency interpret what the congress intended.
the answer is not no one. it's the explicit responsibility of executive officials, in the case of an executive agency, or congress, in the case of a congressional agency to insure the agency does what elected officials have directed it to do either through executive orders or statute. that is why we have elections. if you dont like what an agency does then elect people who will abolish the agency or get it under control, instead of asking courts to tinker with stuff that is outside of their competence and none of their business
"The answer is really no one." False. Agencies are checked by the exec branch, *as they are part of that branch.* Each prez hires the agency heads, who are all political appointees (ideally, also chosen for their expertise). The agency head can then more or less veto anything the career experts and employees are trying to do. That's why you never hear about any new environment rules coming out of the EPA when republicans are in charge. They hire pollution lobbyists to run the EPA so the EPA effectively does nothing. This serves the interests of republican donors and voters who prefer we all choke to death.
"The EPA's own lead attorney could not give definitions." That's because the attorney is an attorney not an environmental scientist. Why did the Supreme Court interview the lawyer about this instead of a scientist, if the Court had any purpose in asking questions other than to try to embarrass a lawyer for being a lawyer and not a scientist. Lets put this on the other foot. If the Supreme Court can't define and has to ask the def of a wetland, then what business does the Supreme Court have in ruling on wetlands? Instead we have *experts* who know what a wetland is. But the billionaires have bribed this Supreme Court to rule on things it has no idea what they are. They know where the money is coming from and that is all that matters to the corrupt Justices on our Crooked Court.
Exactly… The alternative is the Skidmore deference; which has in the context of administrative law, is a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions that applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. In other words, the executive branch would seek approval from the judicial branch (an article three federal court)…
so , if people and companies are paying for these inspectors , does that mean that these agencies annual budget can be reduced ? Since the agencies are no longer having to pay for their employees ?
So it might make congress actually have to do a job? Holy shit can you imagine a world in which politicians actually have to say what they mean and mean what they say when they write legislation what a unrealistic expectation.
Under Chevon every 4 years we get the most biased experts within a field, leading to radical changes in rule interpretation. The rule was flawed from the outset due to who our political leaders appoint.
If the fishermen have to pay federal agents to stay on their ships rhen why don’t hunters have to also pay a federal agent to go with them to hunt every year?
Great, informative video. What did I learn? Nothing. Deregulation is a money grab. From fishermen to corporate ceo, people simply want to cheat. Period.
The fisherman aren't saying they won't have the observers, they've dealt with them for years. It's unelected government bureaucrats decidi9ng that now they have to pay for the observers. It's not cheating, it's trying to make a living. Do you have any idea on the margins made from fishing? They're terrible. And they can't raise the price in the US, because the terrible unregulated Asian countries will step in even more. Did you know it cost more to buy baloney than fresh caught wild shrimp along the Gulf Coast? Bologna... the shrimpers already can't compete with farm raised asian shrimp, and you think it's cheating to try and make an honest living?
ok, this business of forcing fishermen to pay for government monitors has been going on for decades because the law isnt clear on who pays and the agency decided to make fishermen pay. if it's such a bad thing presumably congress has been aware of it and has had ample opportunity to clarify the law, which congress has not done. so the idea is, we're unhappy with congressional inaction so ask the courts to write the law the way we would have wanted congress to write it in the first place. sorry i am not getting behind the idea that there's something wrong with chevron deference. there may be too much government, too many agencies, and too many laws, but that is the fault of taxpayers for supporting such nonsense moreover, assuming it's a good idea to have a government monitor on every fishing vessel, which seems to me like an outrageous law, but, hey, that's apparently what taxpayers wanted, and given a choice between fishermen paying or burdening the general fisc, for sure the burden ought to fall on fishermen, who will pass on the costs to their customers. otherwise you are asking the general public to subsidize the fishing industry, something i'm pretty sure taxpayers would say no to if they had a choice
Bro, we already give the fishing industries billions in subsidies every year, same with oil, same with pharma, same with corn and soy, and most other large corporate sectors. We are not a free country. We are a corporate-owned state where the people are told what they support rather than the people demanding what they support. There is a reason why 75% of the country wants certain things, but it never happens. Our corporate oligarchs don't want it and haven't told their justices or legislators to make it so.
@@Subliminalsapper so you believe. everything is unfair and you're victim of the advantaged taking more advantage of the disadvantaged. people who like to do what they know is wrong always believe this kind of stuff get yourself right with reality, brother. your situation has nothing to do with oligarchs or corporations. it has only to do with you. just do what you know is right and you'll stop having these dark fantasies
The bottom line is that most people consider ANY government employee as a social parasite and the enemy of thier family and community , like the czech movie line " dont you know that we love you"? During an interrogation with the authorities
I still don't understand why someone paying taxes and fees of his profession also has to pay out of pocket for an unwanted worker, that happens to be a federal agent (paid by taxes), that won't help him on any of the fishing duties, while also risking his business being fined if extra load is caught and not returned to the seas. Where does this make any sense?!
it limits production, meanwhile this doesnt happen in China where production limits are uncapped... A lot of U.S. policy is supported by China now. If the CCP dont like some new U.S. policy, usually Congress doesnt like it either...
It dont I commercial Fished in Alaska for a decade, when I left it cost us.... 11,300 a month to have them on bord our vessel + food. I'd say 80% of the time the observers are cool and understand were not trying to over fish were just there to make a living. The other 20% can be a REAL PAIN IN THE ASS though. Fines for a rag going over board, report false harrasment to noaa all sorts of crap. I have know NOAA observers to get Fisherman thrown off Dutch Harbor for a year.
It helps Chevron. You have to know who your betters are...if you see the federal government bending over backwards to appease someone, you know who really calls the shots. Oligarchy...it's what's for dinner.
well as ignorant as his comment is, fish dont stay in territorial water and they can just sit outside the inclusion zone and scope them up. But its not the chinese its the Russians, they took Salmon Eggs from Alaska and spawned them in EVERY STREAM THEY COULD. We taught them how to King Crab in the Early 90s now they under cut us with that. They undercut us in Pollock aka Fish Sticks sandwiches and imitation crab meat. To get around the embargos they SEND THE PRODUCT TO CHINA then it gets processed as a product of china, but guess what we do the same thing so they products get intermixed with no way to tell. US fisherman send fish to china to get processed to get sent right back packaged yes thats right.......@@lockwoodpeckinpaugh9252
All agencies created by the Federal government will be put in there place. No more rules that these agencies created. Laws are what they are to enforce not their rules.
Revised Pledge of allegiance for the US I pledge allegiance to the flag Of the United Corporations of America And to the Oligarchy for which it stands One nation under the corporations. Indivisible With profits and wealth for some
The United States Constitution permits federal agencies to promulgate rules to enable Congress’ legislation. This rulemaking process is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Really, and what section of the Constitution grants this authority to federal agencies? My Constitution says in Article I, Section 1 that all legislative powers... shall be vested in a Congress.
I am sick of this Supreme Court overturning decades of precident over and over. Expand the courts now and get rid of the grifters! We are losing our country and Putin is laughing.
The agencies were created for a reason and need to be able to work independently from courts and lobbyists. Slaughterhouses have to pay their USDA inspectors and I don’t here anyone complaining about that as government overreach. It’s just part of the cost of doing business and if you take that cost off the capital owners you are just going to be putting it on the taxpayers. Why should I have to pay for fish inspectors if I’m not eating those fish? Let the business pay and then distribute the costs among their consumers like they would with any other cost. Also have those fish marked so that consumers know they are getting a sustainability sourced fish and it’s the correct species according to the package certified by the inspector and I bet support for and sales of those fish would increase.
They were created for a reason, but they shouldn’t have no check on their powers. The problem now is that they are no longer interpreting the law. They are actually making law with no say of any other branch of the government or the people. It’s literally the EPA using the CAFE standards, a bill passed almost 50 years ago, to now tell companies and the citizens that they must build, sell and buy EVs and change everything by force. It doesn’t matter how you feel about EVs, it’s all about how you feel the government should ever have the power to force companies to stop producing one thing because the government believes they know what’s best. Regulation is one thing, but regulating to force your beliefs on another is another thing. There’s too much uncheck power within the Executive branch and it needs to be reduced drastically. Not eliminated, but reduced.
I understand how this is being painted to look, but the point is if you want a business you have to pay for all the parts to operate it. If you need a monitor to operate it too becomes an operating cost. The point of removing this cost from businesses is to weaken or kill the epa or other regulatory structures as if the government has to foot the bill to monitor every company from doing harm to the environment or workers or protecting social security it will be too much cost for the government ultimately weakening them to a point of failure to do their job. Every one of the things mentioned are drastically good for the masses but bad for business. The supreme court is hard core republican, and republicans have wanted to kill ( with countless efforts to do so ( sneaky with social security, but still do it)) all of those programs. They tried and did real damage to the spa. They are in mid attempt to dismantle many labor laws that protect workers, and want to dismantle social security. I feel like the Supreme Court will change this by selling it I. A way that the population will not understand the writing like this video. That talks about it as a I’m paying for a product you’re making me have, but not as an operating cost. You pay for services in business all the time that includes the operating cost of the business selling it. Gas, electricity, building code requirements, and inspections. In fact everything you purchase for your business comes with the cost to produce it or operate it. Regulations are necessary, as companies do not will not do the right thing on their own, and it got us to the point that we killed off nearly everything in a few generations.
Would a certin ruling in this case also mean that the feds would be responsible for covering our full costs of complying with the Internal Revenue Code?
Yes we have to have monitors on our boat, we definitely dont make them comfortable tho! Haha, I mess with them any chance i got. Accidentally spray them with water, pretend I dont hear them when they ask me for a favor, you name it!
5:07 Sorry, i am not buying some emergency need. And i disagree with his list of these needs. Let him convince at least my representatives that his list is good.
I'm DCAing in AMS224T as well. ETH heavier DCA and ALGO. I'm taking your advice and starting Google tomorrow with a 50 dollar purchase and continuing Microsoft and Apple. VTI and VOO on another app and longterm portfolio. Here we go family!
WELL, LAW AND COURTS WERE MOST STUPID IN USA - IT IS LIKE COMPANIES DEMANDING IRS TO PAY FOR THE STAFF PREPARING TAX CALCULATION DOCUMENTS; WE HAVE SEEN A COURT SHOWING NO COMMON SENSE IN TRUMP'S ASSETS VALUATION CASE - FOR, EVERY ASSET HAS TWO PRICES, ONE WHEN YOU WANT TO BUY IT, AND ONE WHEN YOU GET WHEN YOU TRY TO SELL IT - PLUS A 3RD PRICE FOR TAX PURPOSES - WHICH IS ALWAYS BASED ON A FORMULA (AND HAS NO RELATION AT ALL TO THE PREVIOUS TWO PRICES[VALUATIONS]... LIKE IT MAY BE THE PURCHASE PRICE, OR A PRICE CHOSEN BY A VALUATOR OR SURVEYOR APPOINTED BY A LOCAL GOVT BODY...
@@bzzi no. If you have ever worked for large corporations then you know thay will likewise abuse it. Congress only has the power to make laws and that is how it should stay. If they could all stop the political games they might actually get something done as well as include moe detailed instructions.
Boeing doors are falling out of airplanes due to lack of oversight. The fisheries were being depleted faster without oversight. Where are we gonna work when the trees are gone?
Lack of oversight? The airline industry has some of the most thorough and strictest regulations and oversight of any industry… Expecting perfection demonstrates you have no grasp of reality…
i understand the Right's position on this, and I'm sympathetic to it on the other hand, if they get their way I'm pretty sure liberal democracy is doomed, which i consider Bad
Don't let Amazon's AMS224T pass you by. This is a monumental moment in history, and you don't want to be left out of the loop. Get in on the ground floor now!
It seems to me it would be cheaper to just fish without the federal babysitter and just pay the fine if/when the fishermen get caught. That is the corporate way after all...just take a page from Chevron and the pharmaceutical cartel.
Its not just fines they take your catch qouta from the next year to offset it and you may or may not ever get it back... fines are also not your 250$ ticket everyone I have ever seen has been 10k+
Agencies should be afraid to act. They are not elected and congress was designed to be a slow moving creature, not the lightning fast and often incorrect, desicions of the federal agencies.
@@ringtail99 lol how’s that working out for everyone? The epa spilled 3,000,000 gallons of toxic sludge into a river in colorado and refused to pay settlements. Also, do you think people in Flint Michigan feel their drinking water is safe? Independent research has concluded half of our tap water has forever chemicals in it. I’m not sold on the epa keeps our water safe 🤷🏼♂️
What has happened is essentially politicians have used such deference to write law through federal agencies. The most recent example has been a series of EA's from Joe Biden, who believes "Assault Weapons should be banned because deer don't wear Kevlar Vests!...No joke!" This started with the ATF writing a rule concerning gun parts being ruled as being a gun, when unassembled and unfinished violating a precedent that always existed where guns homemade were always legal and unregistered. This was reasoned by the ATF to be necessary because the AR15 and some other modern designs utilize a 2 piece reciever that defies the law. The rule didn't even address that but instead was intended to regulate all homemade guns by requiring them to be registered and the parts manufacturers licensed. But the law isn't even ambiguous and the agency was enforcing their interpretation before they even wrote the law. Was that enough? No! Joe Biden stated that AR15'S should be banned period! So the ATF created a rule ending their own 10 year policy of approving pistol braces and separating them from short barreled rifles, a class taxed and regulated by the NFA. They went ever further by making such legally purchased during the previous policy illegal "ex post facto" and demanding NFA registration. The 120 day pause before implementation became a period of ultimatum and the rules themselves became ambiguous while the law was not. This is what Chevron deference has become a means to make law through a federal agency with little recourse by those affected.
New week up as many FOMO in. But the AMS224T story isn’t over yet. The only strat that works under all circumstances is DCA all the time with solid, large companies (not hyped ones).
How to insure more work for the SCOTUS mill. Funnel everything to the judicial system so everything stops cold and waits to be adjudicated. Close to a century spent getting best minds and practices in each field, studied, replicated, understood, practiced, applied and approved through consensus and law and then wait to hear whether the agency recommendation is valid? For everything?
Can't deny the fact that Amazons AMS224T is the strongest bet to bring power back to this industry after we suffered FTX, Celsius, Tera and so on. Sure if they fail it's done for good, but I don't see that the biggest tech company in the world would put everything at risk just for that.
You can call AMS224T bots but that does not change the fact that the shill is absolutely deserved. Out of all launches we had, talk about ETH, talk about XRP, talk about all these new chains but AMS224T breaks everything
It will take some time to understand how Amazons AMS224T is having the most impact in these times. After all the downswings and failures of last year it's about time that someone integrates assets into a useful scenario and that's exactly happening with this asset right now. It will be exciting to see how they develop this product in the future. What do you guys think? Would like to hear some opinions
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
I was an offshore commercial fisherman for 25 years. I loved it. I got tired of government control I gave up. They regulated me out of business with nonsensical laws.
Manufacturing facilities don't have to pay the salary of OSHA personnel... Why should fishermen? Also, the inspectors should be on shore when the boats come back; not looking over their shoulders 24/7... an unfair and unequal application of the law.
It wouldn’t be Bloomberg if they didn’t tell you *how to think* about the issue at the end.
The amount of people who want unelected bureaucrats to make unchecked laws and expanding federal control is truly frightening.
If you think the differences in pollution, food contamination, drug regulation and overfishing from the days before regulations is better you need to think again.
@@blacksquirrel4008 Yes, it's always better to have unelected bureaucrats be installed as policy makers to govern us with out representation or recourse. Its how gun stocks without any moving parts, or a stamped bent piece of metal becomes a machine gun. Also there's the issue of how these federal agencies can change their minds ignoring the input of millions of Americans affected making millions of people felons without Congressional approval...as did BATF.
Basically this the same as civil asset forfeiture...police see a wad of cash, declare it's part of potential criminal activity without ever proving in court that a crime was committed, or often without ever a charge being filed, but then "submit" the money to the FBI and then reclaim a portion of the money "recovered"...and everyone is happy...except the guy that has to take the government to court or outright "lose" the money simply because the amount is not great enough to justify the legal expenses of a court case with the US government with unlimited time and funding.
The court can actually rule that the agency's stated/proposed policies are valid and lawful within the ambiguity of the law and the Chevron deference, and then the agency utterly changes their "lawful" policy to an what would have been an unlawful policy because they are now the de facto responsible policy makers.
@@blacksquirrel4008 it is not about regulations, but unlimited control by the executive branch without a check… The alternative is the Skidmore deference; which has in the context of administrative law, is a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions that applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. In other words, the executive branch would seek approval from the judicial branch (an article three federal court)…
What's the alternative? Companies investigating themselves and pinky-promising they're following the rules? Oversight on small companies like a fishing boat can and should be govt funded instead of making the business pay, but that should be rare and case by case. There absolutely has to be a default stance of making companies pay their own actual cost of doing business. There absolutely has to be walls in place so huge companies don't gain benefits on the same problems they are causing, the first thing they will try to do is bribe someone to slap the small business label on them, or claim that since they have a small presence in some state/country that it's appropriate for them.
@@jbutler8585 At first you're talking more broadly yet you're maintaining a narrow scope...confusing. Think about it this way, which "violation" would you prefer...a (some) company violating some rules like bribing the "monitor" they're already paying for, or a US agency violating all of our rights. Remember when conservatives became the focus of Obama's IRS and EPA, if you're turned off by that narrative, flip it, how about some republican admin focusing on "liberals". Interpretive policies can be changed by Executive branches' political supporters rewarded by political appointments...unless congress corrects the ambiguous language making it law not open to interpretation.
This will help the commercial trawlers more than the single boat captains. Like all fishing regulations do. Small fisherman will benefit some but they’re not the ones over fishing. It’s a red herring law. SCOTUS differing to corporate hegemony since Union Pacific days.
don't call them trawlers like they prefer call them draggers they hate it when they are called that
Agreed
@@empiresacks3498we don't care what you call us.
Perhaps NOAA should have thought about the ramifications of charging fisherman for NOAA observers, something for which congress allocated ZERO funds to NOAA.
The over reach is typical and as such must be eliminated as the agencies NEVER learn their lesson.
@@TheJagjr4450 yes sir. These shitass bureaucrats dont deserve to be trusted with interpreting the law. I dont understand the cheveron deference shit at all. "oh lets ask the agency if theyre doing anything wrong".
Congress should tell you what they intended. It shouldn't be up to the agencies. If they can't tell you their intent and specifically line out what the legislation means, then it doesn't need to exist.
Exactly. Congress should be talking to the experts to help draft their legislation. Big and small experts.
Wrong! If you needed surgery would you go to your school board?
The issue is that Congress is dysfunctional and hardly ever passes anything. Situations change way faster than Congress can keep up with. Taking this out of agency hands will result in a government that can't accomplish much of anything.
@@SidV101 this issue is give power to legislate to a small quantity of people that didn't get a single vote.
@SidV101 Which is their entire point. They want our government to stop functioning. Trailors.
I see the fishermen’s point… however, I also see the point of Chevron. The monitor/regulator of a fishing boat is not doing the boat’s business; he is doing the peoples’ business. Therefore, he should be paid by the people. But to possibly determine, based on this particular case, that the scope of,regulation itself should not be determined by regulators but by the courts? That would be an excessive overreach by the judiciary.
And if they decide that the solution is no oversight at all, well…. Bhopal will occur again and again and again. But here, not there. In the case of these fishermen, it’s known that the resource is waaaay overfished. Take away regulation, and they will all be out of work in 15 years as there will be no fish left to catch.
No, it wouldn’t be an overreach since it’s actually the court’s job to do so. But this isn’t only on the courts. This is on Congress as well since they love passing vague legislation thus giving more power to these agencies. They know exactly what they are doing when they pass these legislations. The power of these agencies goes completely unchecked. That doesn’t mean they have to be completely abolished, but they need limits.
@@stevexracer4309 that could be said about both the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Neither are doing the jobs they are supposed to do.
If you believe there won’t be any more fish left to catch, you are highly mistaken. Other countries are fishing freely as much as they want. There’s an abundant amount of fish in the sea. 🙄
@@thaijen that’s a ridiculous argument. It’s analogous to “China and India pollute as much as they want, therefore we shouldn’t constrain our industries”. I live on the coast. We used to be able to walk a hundred feet down to the bay, and grab mussels off the rocks and eat them. There are no mussels left anywhere in the region, except those that are ‘farmed’. Go read about the outright collapse of the Canadian Atlantic cod industry.
Legislators in Congress deferring law creation to bureaucrats in agencies is unacceptable. It is tyranny to have appointed unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats defining the law for we the people to follow. If the legislative branch can't be bothered to figure it out in detail, it should not be a law. We've got so many laws that one could not hope to be aware of them, and we're all guaranteed to be breaking some "law" every day.
That's bullshit.
The strategy to destroy environmental regulatory bodies frames it as an executive authority issue, but that is simply because the Environmental Protection Agency is under Department of Interior and NOAA is under Department of Commerce. This is all a bullshit tactic to weaken environmental regulators just like Sackett V EPA was.
It's crazy to think that legislators should be experts in every industry. That's why the executive branch exists.
Truly spoken by somebody that has not worked in the public sector. Nothing can be completely defined in law, indefinitely. That's why there are rulemakings to update the law. And specifically in this case, if you want to fish you have to pay for the permitting and monitoring to do so. The same goes for discharging pollutants from manufacturing into the same water we drink. No one has the absolute right to pollute or take from public waterways. You can obtain a permit to do so and monitor to prove your meeting your permit requirements. You don't want to pay for the permit in the monitoring, then don't have a business that takes from or pollutes public waterways.
@@jisezer it's fine for the experts to provide testimony or suggest guidance for lawmaking, but Congress should vote on all legislation. The actual law must originate with our elected representatives, in it's complete detail.
Oh and, Congress passed legislation such as the clean Air act and clean water act that give authority, the responsibility, of passing federal regulations and keeping those regulations up-to-date on a scheduled basis to agencies such as the EPA. As I've always told those I've trained, "Know your regs!"
Makes perfect sense that the law can do a 180 when a different political party is in charge.
Exactly. GOP; deregulate. Dems; stop the steal.
In charge of the Supreme Court, you mean.
Federal agencies should have no authority to change or make law
They're created by congress. If you don't like them, take it up with congress. It is up to congress to get rid of them if they are not desired. According to our constitution, we are not to be ruled over by unelected politicians, which is why the constitution, if you've ever read it, gives almost no power to the Supreme Court. They are not a "co-equal branch" they are basically just an agency under the actual, written constitution. They have no power to write federal laws or to veto them. They do it all the time anyway, because we do not have Rule of Law, we have Rule of Billionaire.
Recommendations, no?
@@pinchebruha405 make the congress make laws
@@RagnarokeiroOrigi Congress does not have the expertise to make these laws. Who is a Congress person from South Carolina to say how much mercury is allowed in water or what drugs are constituted as controlled substances or sold over the counter? I understand you’re making a simple argument, but these are complicated issues, and they need more nuance.. this will be the end of modern civilization in the United States of America
@@mikeHamilton-w3x It doesn't matter, delegate law creation to a unelected official of the executive branch beyond the scope of what a executive official does.
The problem becomes then, who checks the power of the agencies? Who makes sure the agencies are acting in the best interest of the public and not in the best interest of themselves? Who makes sure that the rules, laws, definitions, etc are being enforced without discrimination, bias, fairly? Who makes sure the agency is applying their own rules equally to everyone? Who makes sure that if a ruling is made against someone for a fine or violation that that person or entity can reasonably challenge a decision without undue hardship or financial ruin. The answer is really no one.
In hearing these cases the Supreme Court asked the EPA two simple questions related to the definition the agency routinely issue fines and violations on. How do you define a navigable waterway? What is the definition of a wetland? The EPA's own lead attorney could not give definitions. The Supreme Court showed concern that if they didn't know and had ruled differently in nearly identical situations how was the general public supposed to know how to follow the law?
Another issue is that the interpretation could change depending on the politics of the administration at any given time. An example of this is an ATF ruling on bump-stocks for rifles. Their original interpretation was that bump stocks do not make a rifle a machine gun. President Trump directed them to make bump stocks illegal and so they re- interpreted the rule/law to make them machine guns and therefore illegal.
You may believe whatever you want about this act but it is unfair to the citizens when a government agency tells them something is legal to buy purchase or possess one day and then reverses course at some whim and say that same thing is now illegal, without the law having changed or some actual legal ruling.
The simple solution is for the senate/congress to recognize the discrepancy and amend the law to address the discrepancy, rather than let an agency interpret what the congress intended.
the answer is not no one. it's the explicit responsibility of executive officials, in the case of an executive agency, or congress, in the case of a congressional agency to insure the agency does what elected officials have directed it to do either through executive orders or statute. that is why we have elections. if you dont like what an agency does then elect people who will abolish the agency or get it under control, instead of asking courts to tinker with stuff that is outside of their competence and none of their business
"The answer is really no one."
False. Agencies are checked by the exec branch, *as they are part of that branch.* Each prez hires the agency heads, who are all political appointees (ideally, also chosen for their expertise). The agency head can then more or less veto anything the career experts and employees are trying to do. That's why you never hear about any new environment rules coming out of the EPA when republicans are in charge. They hire pollution lobbyists to run the EPA so the EPA effectively does nothing. This serves the interests of republican donors and voters who prefer we all choke to death.
"The EPA's own lead attorney could not give definitions."
That's because the attorney is an attorney not an environmental scientist. Why did the Supreme Court interview the lawyer about this instead of a scientist, if the Court had any purpose in asking questions other than to try to embarrass a lawyer for being a lawyer and not a scientist. Lets put this on the other foot. If the Supreme Court can't define and has to ask the def of a wetland, then what business does the Supreme Court have in ruling on wetlands? Instead we have *experts* who know what a wetland is. But the billionaires have bribed this Supreme Court to rule on things it has no idea what they are. They know where the money is coming from and that is all that matters to the corrupt Justices on our Crooked Court.
Exactly… The alternative is the Skidmore deference; which has in the context of administrative law, is a principle of judicial review of federal agency actions that applies when a federal court yields to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute administered by the agency according to the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning. In other words, the executive branch would seek approval from the judicial branch (an article three federal court)…
so , if people and companies are paying for these inspectors , does that mean that these agencies annual budget can be reduced ? Since the agencies are no longer having to pay for their employees ?
So it might make congress actually have to do a job? Holy shit can you imagine a world in which politicians actually have to say what they mean and mean what they say when they write legislation what a unrealistic expectation.
Under Chevon every 4 years we get the most biased experts within a field, leading to radical changes in rule interpretation. The rule was flawed from the outset due to who our political leaders appoint.
If the fishermen have to pay federal agents to stay on their ships rhen why don’t hunters have to also pay a federal agent to go with them to hunt every year?
Because it’s unlawful sell, offer for sell, or transport with the intent to sell wild game. Different states have their own provisions.
The idiocy of that comparison! 🤦♀️
Please remove the power from Agency's
Great, informative video. What did I learn? Nothing. Deregulation is a money grab. From fishermen to corporate ceo, people simply want to cheat. Period.
The fisherman aren't saying they won't have the observers, they've dealt with them for years. It's unelected government bureaucrats decidi9ng that now they have to pay for the observers. It's not cheating, it's trying to make a living. Do you have any idea on the margins made from fishing? They're terrible. And they can't raise the price in the US, because the terrible unregulated Asian countries will step in even more. Did you know it cost more to buy baloney than fresh caught wild shrimp along the Gulf Coast? Bologna... the shrimpers already can't compete with farm raised asian shrimp, and you think it's cheating to try and make an honest living?
ok, this business of forcing fishermen to pay for government monitors has been going on for decades because the law isnt clear on who pays and the agency decided to make fishermen pay. if it's such a bad thing presumably congress has been aware of it and has had ample opportunity to clarify the law, which congress has not done. so the idea is, we're unhappy with congressional inaction so ask the courts to write the law the way we would have wanted congress to write it in the first place. sorry i am not getting behind the idea that there's something wrong with chevron deference. there may be too much government, too many agencies, and too many laws, but that is the fault of taxpayers for supporting such nonsense
moreover, assuming it's a good idea to have a government monitor on every fishing vessel, which seems to me like an outrageous law, but, hey, that's apparently what taxpayers wanted, and given a choice between fishermen paying or burdening the general fisc, for sure the burden ought to fall on fishermen, who will pass on the costs to their customers. otherwise you are asking the general public to subsidize the fishing industry, something i'm pretty sure taxpayers would say no to if they had a choice
Bro, we already give the fishing industries billions in subsidies every year, same with oil, same with pharma, same with corn and soy, and most other large corporate sectors.
We are not a free country. We are a corporate-owned state where the people are told what they support rather than the people demanding what they support. There is a reason why 75% of the country wants certain things, but it never happens. Our corporate oligarchs don't want it and haven't told their justices or legislators to make it so.
@@Subliminalsapper so you believe. everything is unfair and you're victim of the advantaged taking more advantage of the disadvantaged. people who like to do what they know is wrong always believe this kind of stuff
get yourself right with reality, brother. your situation has nothing to do with oligarchs or corporations. it has only to do with you. just do what you know is right and you'll stop having these dark fantasies
The bottom line is that most people consider ANY government employee as a social parasite and the enemy of thier family and community , like the czech movie line " dont you know that we love you"? During an interrogation with the authorities
I still don't understand why someone paying taxes and fees of his profession also has to pay out of pocket for an unwanted worker, that happens to be a federal agent (paid by taxes), that won't help him on any of the fishing duties, while also risking his business being fined if extra load is caught and not returned to the seas. Where does this make any sense?!
it limits production, meanwhile this doesnt happen in China where production limits are uncapped... A lot of U.S. policy is supported by China now. If the CCP dont like some new U.S. policy, usually Congress doesnt like it either...
It dont I commercial Fished in Alaska for a decade, when I left it cost us.... 11,300 a month to have them on bord our vessel + food. I'd say 80% of the time the observers are cool and understand were not trying to over fish were just there to make a living. The other 20% can be a REAL PAIN IN THE ASS though. Fines for a rag going over board, report false harrasment to noaa all sorts of crap. I have know NOAA observers to get Fisherman thrown off Dutch Harbor for a year.
@@oltch.China doesn't fish in US waters.
It helps Chevron. You have to know who your betters are...if you see the federal government bending over backwards to appease someone, you know who really calls the shots. Oligarchy...it's what's for dinner.
well as ignorant as his comment is, fish dont stay in territorial water and they can just sit outside the inclusion zone and scope them up. But its not the chinese its the Russians, they took Salmon Eggs from Alaska and spawned them in EVERY STREAM THEY COULD. We taught them how to King Crab in the Early 90s now they under cut us with that. They undercut us in Pollock aka Fish Sticks sandwiches and imitation crab meat. To get around the embargos they SEND THE PRODUCT TO CHINA then it gets processed as a product of china, but guess what we do the same thing so they products get intermixed with no way to tell. US fisherman send fish to china to get processed to get sent right back packaged yes thats right.......@@lockwoodpeckinpaugh9252
All agencies created by the Federal government will be put in there place. No more rules that these agencies created. Laws are what they are to enforce not their rules.
Best last call song ever.
Now lets see bloomberg cover chevron and the feds overstepping.
In relation to firearms...
Revised Pledge of allegiance for the US
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United Corporations of America
And to the Oligarchy for which it stands
One nation under the corporations. Indivisible
With profits and wealth for some
Perfect
Don’t be overly pessimistic. It seems like they are leaning towards a decision that returns power to the people.
The United States Constitution permits federal agencies to promulgate rules to enable Congress’ legislation. This rulemaking process is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Really, and what section of the Constitution grants this authority to federal agencies? My Constitution says in Article I, Section 1 that all legislative powers... shall be vested in a Congress.
But todays scotus judges rule by Gifts, not by precedence or constitution.
I am sick of this Supreme Court overturning decades of precident over and over. Expand the courts now and get rid of the grifters! We are losing our country and Putin is laughing.
The agencies were created for a reason and need to be able to work independently from courts and lobbyists. Slaughterhouses have to pay their USDA inspectors and I don’t here anyone complaining about that as government overreach. It’s just part of the cost of doing business and if you take that cost off the capital owners you are just going to be putting it on the taxpayers. Why should I have to pay for fish inspectors if I’m not eating those fish? Let the business pay and then distribute the costs among their consumers like they would with any other cost. Also have those fish marked so that consumers know they are getting a sustainability sourced fish and it’s the correct species according to the package certified by the inspector and I bet support for and sales of those fish would increase.
Well said and on point!
They were created for a reason, but they shouldn’t have no check on their powers. The problem now is that they are no longer interpreting the law. They are actually making law with no say of any other branch of the government or the people. It’s literally the EPA using the CAFE standards, a bill passed almost 50 years ago, to now tell companies and the citizens that they must build, sell and buy EVs and change everything by force. It doesn’t matter how you feel about EVs, it’s all about how you feel the government should ever have the power to force companies to stop producing one thing because the government believes they know what’s best. Regulation is one thing, but regulating to force your beliefs on another is another thing. There’s too much uncheck power within the Executive branch and it needs to be reduced drastically. Not eliminated, but reduced.
I understand how this is being painted to look, but the point is if you want a business you have to pay for all the parts to operate it. If you need a monitor to operate it too becomes an operating cost. The point of removing this cost from businesses is to weaken or kill the epa or other regulatory structures as if the government has to foot the bill to monitor every company from doing harm to the environment or workers or protecting social security it will be too much cost for the government ultimately weakening them to a point of failure to do their job. Every one of the things mentioned are drastically good for the masses but bad for business. The supreme court is hard core republican, and republicans have wanted to kill ( with countless efforts to do so ( sneaky with social security, but still do it)) all of those programs. They tried and did real damage to the spa. They are in mid attempt to dismantle many labor laws that protect workers, and want to dismantle social security. I feel like the Supreme Court will change this by selling it I. A way that the population will not understand the writing like this video. That talks about it as a I’m paying for a product you’re making me have, but not as an operating cost. You pay for services in business all the time that includes the operating cost of the business selling it. Gas, electricity, building code requirements, and inspections. In fact everything you purchase for your business comes with the cost to produce it or operate it. Regulations are necessary, as companies do not will not do the right thing on their own, and it got us to the point that we killed off nearly everything in a few generations.
Booker just opened a bag of worms and spilled them all over himself 😂. He’s about to find out. 😂
Ok, I am sold. I will HODL my AMS224T for the long haul.
Would a certin ruling in this case also mean that the feds would be responsible for covering our full costs of complying with the Internal Revenue Code?
They can pay the fees to file through other companies.
Yes we have to have monitors on our boat, we definitely dont make them comfortable tho! Haha, I mess with them any chance i got. Accidentally spray them with water, pretend I dont hear them when they ask me for a favor, you name it!
Term limits. Regulators should not be allowed to hold a regulatory position for more then 6 years.
5:07 Sorry, i am not buying some emergency need. And i disagree with his list of these needs. Let him convince at least my representatives that his list is good.
Awesome song. I thought the Waterboys were the reason Chevron deference might come crashing down for a second with the way yall introduced it lol
Finally poor fisherman and the environment can survive. EPA is a tool of corporate overlords
I'm DCAing in AMS224T as well. ETH heavier DCA and ALGO. I'm taking your advice and starting Google tomorrow with a 50 dollar purchase and continuing Microsoft and Apple. VTI and VOO on another app and longterm portfolio. Here we go family!
That’s not right. The agency should be paying those agents and there is no reason for a judge not to fill in all those details.
Are you kidding? That's way beyond their scope of "expertise!"
Easy, give agencies more power to enforce and fund their regulatory decisions. Better them than some bullshit deregulation.
What does fishing got to do with that crap? Then, fishing companies are forced to pay for their "son of a guards"??!!
WELL, LAW AND COURTS WERE MOST STUPID IN USA - IT IS LIKE COMPANIES DEMANDING IRS TO PAY FOR THE STAFF PREPARING TAX CALCULATION DOCUMENTS; WE HAVE SEEN A COURT SHOWING NO COMMON SENSE IN TRUMP'S ASSETS VALUATION CASE - FOR, EVERY ASSET HAS TWO PRICES, ONE WHEN YOU WANT TO BUY IT, AND ONE WHEN YOU GET WHEN YOU TRY TO SELL IT - PLUS A 3RD PRICE FOR TAX PURPOSES - WHICH IS ALWAYS BASED ON A FORMULA (AND HAS NO RELATION AT ALL TO THE PREVIOUS TWO PRICES[VALUATIONS]... LIKE IT MAY BE THE PURCHASE PRICE, OR A PRICE CHOSEN BY A VALUATOR OR SURVEYOR APPOINTED BY A LOCAL GOVT BODY...
No way should departments have such power. We now know that it is too easy to abuse.
So who do you want drafting these? The companies? Do you trust corporations to protect our rights?
@@bzzi no. If you have ever worked for large corporations then you know thay will likewise abuse it. Congress only has the power to make laws and that is how it should stay. If they could all stop the political games they might actually get something done as well as include moe detailed instructions.
@@ericbyers235 Exactly, that's why we need the Chevron to stay.
Great, now let's get rid of that pesky FAA. The free market should determine whether or not planes are safe, not some meddlesome agency.
BUY THE *AMS224T* AND HOLD THE LINE BOYS.
Well it looks like we have entered back into the age of the corporations and courts. Let Chaos ensue.
Down with the agency.
Boeing doors are falling out of airplanes due to lack of oversight. The fisheries were being depleted faster without oversight. Where are we gonna work when the trees are gone?
Lack of oversight? The airline industry has some of the most thorough and strictest regulations and oversight of any industry… Expecting perfection demonstrates you have no grasp of reality…
So basically bearish on everything except Amazon's AMS224T
Fisherman are wrecking havoc on oceans, just get a new trade.
Imagine missing the Amazon AMS224T on-going presale, HODL STRONG the public sale about to explode
I guess the right wing's gonna take away social security.......
AMS224T has as much potential as ethereum. But unlike ethereum it has a bigger growth potential.
Could you please talk about AMS224T it’s very strong and took off in short time thanks.
Our Government agencies over bearing on our fishermen is unreal. Foriegn fishermen ho unchecked.
Chevron needs to be overturned
How do you feel about AMS224T moving into the nft marketplace? Is it still a buy?.
i understand the Right's position on this, and I'm sympathetic to it
on the other hand, if they get their way I'm pretty sure liberal democracy is doomed, which i consider Bad
Get rid of chevron deference and we get our gun rights back
Why is AMS224T doing so well? That is concerning to me.
We will rise with AMS224T and Matic!!! Just HODL
Been staking with AMS224T!
Overturn Chevron deference
I DCA'd into XRP and AMS224T even though I told myself I was going to wait until I get paid but I couldnt resist, these prices are too good to wait!
Crazy….
The video would be better without that annoying background music
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna hare Hare hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
All of my USDT is still going to buy AMS224T
ADA is the safest 30x from now to 2025. AMS224T is the 1000x gem ready to shock the market
Don't let Amazon's AMS224T pass you by. This is a monumental moment in history, and you don't want to be left out of the loop. Get in on the ground floor now!
It seems to me it would be cheaper to just fish without the federal babysitter and just pay the fine if/when the fishermen get caught. That is the corporate way after all...just take a page from Chevron and the pharmaceutical cartel.
Its not just fines they take your catch qouta from the next year to offset it and you may or may not ever get it back... fines are also not your 250$ ticket everyone I have ever seen has been 10k+
$100,000 fine and taking your license s and permits ends your career. They'll take the boat too.
depends how bad it is, like if we go lets say 1000 pounds over by accident its just a fine, if we hall in 100k there taking the boat lol@@KaiserBlade
@@cncslavtoplastic I did this for 25 years . I've been educated by all law enforcement involved. All of them. I know how it works
This all really comes down to whoever gives the most gifts to the Alt Right 5 SCOTUS judges.
MY wife will kill me if if i don't buy AMS224T Bagged
I already converted all my ETH to AMS224T, now I feel like moving all my BTC to ADA as well.
Chevron was a horrible decision
Good report until your random guest's political opinions at the end, c'mon, just report the facts
John the fisherman was better.
Agencies should be afraid to act. They are not elected and congress was designed to be a slow moving creature, not the lightning fast and often incorrect, desicions of the federal agencies.
Bye bye ATF and EPA whooo!!!
epa makes sure our water is safe that is not a good thing
@@ringtail99 lol how’s that working out for everyone? The epa spilled 3,000,000 gallons of toxic sludge into a river in colorado and refused to pay settlements. Also, do you think people in Flint Michigan feel their drinking water is safe? Independent research has concluded half of our tap water has forever chemicals in it. I’m not sold on the epa keeps our water safe 🤷🏼♂️
We'll see about that. I don't mind to see the crash. I just hope I'll have a lot of USDT to buy more AMS224T live presale.
What has happened is essentially politicians have used such deference to write law through federal agencies. The most recent example has been a series of EA's from Joe Biden, who believes "Assault Weapons should be banned because deer don't wear Kevlar Vests!...No joke!" This started with the ATF writing a rule concerning gun parts being ruled as being a gun, when unassembled and unfinished violating a precedent that always existed where guns homemade were always legal and unregistered. This was reasoned by the ATF to be necessary because the AR15 and some other modern designs utilize a 2 piece reciever that defies the law. The rule didn't even address that but instead was intended to regulate all homemade guns by requiring them to be registered and the parts manufacturers licensed. But the law isn't even ambiguous and the agency was enforcing their interpretation before they even wrote the law. Was that enough? No! Joe Biden stated that AR15'S should be banned period! So the ATF created a rule ending their own 10 year policy of approving pistol braces and separating them from short barreled rifles, a class taxed and regulated by the NFA. They went ever further by making such legally purchased during the previous policy illegal "ex post facto" and demanding NFA registration. The 120 day pause before implementation became a period of ultimatum and the rules themselves became ambiguous while the law was not. This is what Chevron deference has become a means to make law through a federal agency with little recourse by those affected.
They should be banned. There is no good reason to sell them to the population. None.
May God bless Amazon. the AMS224T is the game changer
New week up as many FOMO in. But the AMS224T story isn’t over yet. The only strat that works under all circumstances is DCA all the time with solid, large companies (not hyped ones).
The guy at the end is literally advocating for why we need unequivocal top down control? What part of freedom is that?
Thank you for the update AMS224T is done right, and waiting is part of the process,
You cant fight the AMS224T Fomo haha
Crock of bs ......
Not sure about BTC and ETH, but putting USDT in AMS224T for 10x makes sense.
Finally
Somehow always these ppl do not mention actual reasons behind the scenes. The reason why we can go so big is ONLY because of AMS224T
We'll be going to the bottom within 2-3 months. For now, DCA-ing bi-weekly with 21usd in AMS224T /BTC and monthly 21 in CRO.
I’m buying AMS224T on sale, waiting for BTC to maybe drop again before I add more. Hope to take some Eth profits by Sept proof of stake
AMS224T might just have the biggest potential of any altcoin right now. 🤜🤛
How to insure more work for the SCOTUS mill. Funnel everything to the judicial system so everything stops cold and waits to be adjudicated. Close to a century spent getting best minds and practices in each field, studied, replicated, understood, practiced, applied and approved through consensus and law and then wait to hear whether the agency recommendation is valid? For everything?
Can't deny the fact that Amazons AMS224T is the strongest bet to bring power back to this industry after we suffered FTX, Celsius, Tera and so on. Sure if they fail it's done for good, but I don't see that the biggest tech company in the world would put everything at risk just for that.
I knew that AMS224T was ahead of the game, but my mind is officially blown
You can call AMS224T bots but that does not change the fact that the shill is absolutely deserved. Out of all launches we had, talk about ETH, talk about XRP, talk about all these new chains but AMS224T breaks everything
AMS224T, ETH, and more would be great.
It will take some time to understand how Amazons AMS224T is having the most impact in these times. After all the downswings and failures of last year it's about time that someone integrates assets into a useful scenario and that's exactly happening with this asset right now. It will be exciting to see how they develop this product in the future. What do you guys think? Would like to hear some opinions
Hell yes $ AMS224T. Going to have a huge Q4
TrueThis may be the last time you can get AMS224T before it takes off 5,000%.