the only issue before the court was whether the ATF has authority to redefine terms under the NFA, not whether it's constitutional for congress to pass it. SCOTUS cannot rule on constitutionality of a law passed by congress, because no congressional law was passed. they cannot hypothesize what the language of that law MIGHT be. SCOTUS does not have authority to do so.
any statements beyond the immediate issue of the case is called dicta. it holds no legal authority because it is not at issue in the case. the judiciary lacks authority to rule on any issue not immediately before them. YOU are making the inference that because alito said legislative authority lies with congress, not an executive agency, that congress passing the same regulation as law would be constitutional. he did not say that. you are assigning the implication. this is a textbook law school dicta trap.
in law school they even warn you to not rely on dicta because it holds no legal authority, and judges regularly go against the implications of their own dicta. there have been multiple instances where SCOTUS ruled that a regulation from an executive body was beyond their authority, and then when legislative bodies passed laws on the issue, it was then found unconstitutional anyways.
you're misreading what he says.
congress has the authority to legislate, not the ATF. doesn't make congress doing it constitutional.
go to law school.
If he, a SUPREME COURT FUCKING JUDGE, felt it was completely unconstitutional you think he wouldn't give them a green light to do just that.
"Congress can amend the law" "Congress can act" English motherfucker can you read it?
the only issue before the court was whether the ATF has authority to redefine terms under the NFA, not whether it's constitutional for congress to pass it. SCOTUS cannot rule on constitutionality of a law passed by congress, because no congressional law was passed. they cannot hypothesize what the language of that law MIGHT be. SCOTUS does not have authority to do so.
any statements beyond the immediate issue of the case is called dicta. it holds no legal authority because it is not at issue in the case. the judiciary lacks authority to rule on any issue not immediately before them. YOU are making the inference that because alito said legislative authority lies with congress, not an executive agency, that congress passing the same regulation as law would be constitutional. he did not say that. you are assigning the implication. this is a textbook law school dicta trap.
in law school they even warn you to not rely on dicta because it holds no legal authority, and judges regularly go against the implications of their own dicta. there have been multiple instances where SCOTUS ruled that a regulation from an executive body was beyond their authority, and then when legislative bodies passed laws on the issue, it was then found unconstitutional anyways.
no, you're misreading the meaning of what he said. YOU are applying meaning to something that he said, but the meaning YOU are taking, he did not say.
go to law school.