I'll caveat that not all changes are 'good' changes too. The future generations might not value the things we hold dear, like the jury trial. One day maybe they'll sadly see that as us wasting ordinary people's time.
People in the future are not automatically our betters, but our equals, (hopefully) armed with the knowledge of our failings and armed with that of our successes.
Gen Z reporting in. Above comment's point was not to generalize an entire demographic as 'doing good'. & it was a good one. Don't assume that of us either.
Judging entire groups of people as a monolith is always bad. I'll add 'good' is subjective of an individual's values. Expect future generations to mock us for what we believe acceptable.
I don't think for the court it was an issue of making wise policy choices but of who had what authority, and what did the law say about it. The court simply didn't have anything enabling them to delegate their powers in the Chevron case.
The separation of powers is core to the structure of our government, delegating powers onto other branches nullifies that. Hence the non delegation doctrine. Perhaps it [Chevron] may be good policy but it simply isn't how our government is structured.
I mean that power was there since article 3 got drafted, and reaffirmed by the text of the APA.
The issue is the legislature not being able to pass laws due to the filibuster. This has lead to agencies being forced to take up their own interpretations to adapt language beyond it's original meaning to attempt to complete their goals, like w/ the Loper Bright case.
The Loper Bright ruling was that when taken on appeal that the courts no longer have to accept a reasonable agency interpretation over a reasonable (or more reasonable) interpretation by the other party.
And the rulings isn't just for the EPA but all other federal agencies like the IRS, ICE, and the FDA. This bill is a double edged sword depending on who has the executive seat.
Tldr if it's in the constitution that the feds can do it, feds get to do it. If not states rights.
There also a few clauses like the interstate commerce clause which got reinterpreted when FDR had appointed most of the justices to have expansive definitions giving the feds more authority.
Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying "No person shall dump oil in the river".
The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it's meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn't necessary commentary.
What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don't like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from "Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton"? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.
While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.
It's a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that's meant to be funny. That's parody.
That's satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.
Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most "music parody" like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.
The video's maker claims this is parody but seems more like just (at best) satire which receives less legal protections typically. It doesn't seem that there's any commentary on the work original IPs, given the rest of his body of work.
So you honest to God believe that the Boston Massacre isn't an important event in American history? Just as the the French-Indian War which had it not occurred the Revolution wouldn't have happenen?
My supporting evidence only has served as a platform for you to hang your own argument off of. If you needed to go to Wikipedia to learn about the French-Indian War just now you've no place to qualify American History as solely that of the English.
FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world Posts 41Comments 1,262Joined 2 yr. ago
Anyone else see the face?