Ned Ryun

do these four or 5,000 page bills, send them over to the bureaucrats who with their statutes and regulations actually put a fine point on how this is actually gonna look in reality. So they're doing the real governing. So they've not only given them all the funding without any real oversight, they just give it to them.

They've then sub-delegated their legislative authority to these unelected bureaucrats. And then go home and say, you need to send me back. I know those people at the EPA or the FDA made some terrible regulations that are ruining your lives, but send me back.

They've then sub-delegated their legislative authority to these unelected bureaucrats. And then go home and say, you need to send me back. I know those people at the EPA or the FDA made some terrible regulations that are ruining your lives, but send me back.

They've then sub-delegated their legislative authority to these unelected bureaucrats. And then go home and say, you need to send me back. I know those people at the EPA or the FDA made some terrible regulations that are ruining your lives, but send me back.

I'll fight the system and I'll make sure that doesn't happen again as they get reelected to then fund those people again, to then send them forward 5,000 page bills, to then do the statutes and regulations that actually govern us. The whole system is completely bonkers.

I'll fight the system and I'll make sure that doesn't happen again as they get reelected to then fund those people again, to then send them forward 5,000 page bills, to then do the statutes and regulations that actually govern us. The whole system is completely bonkers.

I'll fight the system and I'll make sure that doesn't happen again as they get reelected to then fund those people again, to then send them forward 5,000 page bills, to then do the statutes and regulations that actually govern us. The whole system is completely bonkers.

And it's actually very beneficial to most of these elected representatives, experts in self-preservation, because they don't have to make the hard choices. They don't actually have to do the really hard decisions on legislating because the statutes and regulations that have the binding effect of laws is what's being done over here in the Article II branch by these administrative state bureaucrats.

And it's actually very beneficial to most of these elected representatives, experts in self-preservation, because they don't have to make the hard choices. They don't actually have to do the really hard decisions on legislating because the statutes and regulations that have the binding effect of laws is what's being done over here in the Article II branch by these administrative state bureaucrats.

And it's actually very beneficial to most of these elected representatives, experts in self-preservation, because they don't have to make the hard choices. They don't actually have to do the really hard decisions on legislating because the statutes and regulations that have the binding effect of laws is what's being done over here in the Article II branch by these administrative state bureaucrats.

At some point, I do have some hope that we're going to have a chance, not only with Donald Trump, but the Supreme Court. The last summer, there were a couple of cases that I think gave us real hope. Yes. It was not only Chevron deference, where the Supreme Court said, 40 years, this is a disaster. We're not going to have judicial deference to these bureaucrats. regulations and statutes.

At some point, I do have some hope that we're going to have a chance, not only with Donald Trump, but the Supreme Court. The last summer, there were a couple of cases that I think gave us real hope. Yes. It was not only Chevron deference, where the Supreme Court said, 40 years, this is a disaster. We're not going to have judicial deference to these bureaucrats. regulations and statutes.

At some point, I do have some hope that we're going to have a chance, not only with Donald Trump, but the Supreme Court. The last summer, there were a couple of cases that I think gave us real hope. Yes. It was not only Chevron deference, where the Supreme Court said, 40 years, this is a disaster. We're not going to have judicial deference to these bureaucrats. regulations and statutes.

I think the other one that wasn't discussed as much that should have been is when the Supreme Court said the SEC tribunals, you can't have those anymore. The SEC cannot have its own private administrative law tribunal in which 90% of the time that SEC tribunal ruled in favor of the SEC.

I think the other one that wasn't discussed as much that should have been is when the Supreme Court said the SEC tribunals, you can't have those anymore. The SEC cannot have its own private administrative law tribunal in which 90% of the time that SEC tribunal ruled in favor of the SEC.

I think the other one that wasn't discussed as much that should have been is when the Supreme Court said the SEC tribunals, you can't have those anymore. The SEC cannot have its own private administrative law tribunal in which 90% of the time that SEC tribunal ruled in favor of the SEC.

The Supreme Court said, first of all, it calls into question the idea of an independent judiciary, because you're taking the judicial role inside the Article 2 branch, not the Article 3, and you've annihilated our Seventh Amendment, which is right to trial by jury. We're not going to do this anymore.

The Supreme Court said, first of all, it calls into question the idea of an independent judiciary, because you're taking the judicial role inside the Article 2 branch, not the Article 3, and you've annihilated our Seventh Amendment, which is right to trial by jury. We're not going to do this anymore.

The Supreme Court said, first of all, it calls into question the idea of an independent judiciary, because you're taking the judicial role inside the Article 2 branch, not the Article 3, and you've annihilated our Seventh Amendment, which is right to trial by jury. We're not going to do this anymore.

Which was, by the way, I mean, you look at some of these things that we're dealing with today and look at where the founders started. They wanted an independent judiciary because they saw what the British courts were doing in rubber stamping King George III and his ministers and parliament's edicts that they viewed as very deeply unfair to them, but they were just acting as a rubber stamp.