Bottom line, if you enjoy the protections of being a corporation then you follow these rules voluntarily. If you don't want to follow these rules, you are free to act as independent citizens outside the laws defining corporations. Good luck with that.
While also actively removing the rights of employees and claiming that is their constitutional right. Woo!
[dupe]
what happened to that other one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463
Well. Is the structure of those organizations unconstitutional?
If Vice is hammering on the litigant rather than the contents of the case, I sort of suspect the answer is yes.
Why wouldn't they? They've got a supreme court filled with people essentially yelling "hey, throw me money and you'll get what you want!" Half of them worked on the supreme court overthrowing the will of voters in Bush vs Gore. They're corrupt to the core and sycophants to the billionaire class.
At the end of the day, corporations and labor both see the writing on the wall. Immigration is not popular and younger generations in the US are shrinking, there's no replacement population. So theoretically labor should gain power and there is increased labor organization happening in the US. But, corporations are not going to sit back and let that happen. So we see attacks on all levels of government when it comes to labor protections. Hell, several states have already put children back to work. The new deal is fully under attack and I think a lot of the people cheering it on are going to be most hurt by it.
Ah yes, another fine example of the retardation of HN. Tell me again how this place has so much better discussion than [site you cry about constantly].
Good. Hopefully they're all privatized.
> the NLRB and FTC—are "unconstitutional."
Neither of them are "core public institution". NLRB has probably destroyed more jobs that all recessions combines and might have hurt the poorest and most vulnerable population lot more. They have worked to spread the cancer of collective bargaining powers, coercive unions and other protections for their favourite people at the expense of american consumers.
> FTC
This should be considered unconstitutional. If you provide a service that is cheap you are "predatory", if you provide a service that is very expensive you are "price gauging" and if you are average your are "colluding".
FTC is an evil eye of sauron that is on every damn successful business.
I hope "trader joes" succeeds in putting a stake into hearts of these two vampires.
This is framed in a very specific way. The real question is how much latitude administrative agencies should be given. Chevron says a lot and it says that they don't have to be consistent, nor do they have to even meet the plain meaning of the legislation. The issue this causes is it allows congress to not legislate, but pass the buck to the administrate agency. Congress has been dysfunctional for so long we have come to expect it, but it doesn't mean it’s good for our system.
If congress wants something regulated, they should pass a law and give guidance and the agency should have to meet the clear meaning of the law until its changed by congress. In general, a new president shouldn't affect how agencies implement the will of congress but chevron kinda implicitly allows this. There are lots of regulations that may be swept away if we do away with Chevron but I think it will make the system more accountable and force congress to do its job.