>>Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate

That would imply that Congress derived its just power from the constitution, yet I see no power that authorized the FAA in the first place...

Thus per the 10th amendment that power should be rightfully reserved to the People and the States.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar....

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

> The Constitution gives Congress substantial power to establish federal government offices. As an initial matter, the Constitution vests the legislative power in Congress.1 Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers.2 The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise of its more specific authorities.3 The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices.4 Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives.5 The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.6

It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional.

Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article 1 as to them "Necessary and Proper Clause" makes everything congress deems " Necessary and Proper Clause" to be constitution, a moronic interpretation of the Constitution who's entire purpose was to limit federal power.

The current court is set to role back some of that, I hope it does but it is unlikely they will go as far I want them to... Which includes going all the way back and reversing Wickard v. Filburn and every decision that built off that wrong.

> It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional.

It's a partisan assertion of a narrow political group, not generally accepted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the assertion, but to say it's somehow a truth generally acknowledged is false.

That's a partisan phrasing, but I think there's an uncontroversial, generally accepted assertion there. Namely, starting with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, the courts were willing to uphold nearly any federal program under the banner of "interstate commerce" until US. v. Lopez.

The idea that the constitution forbids Congress from delegating to the executive is not widely accepted. It is a novel interpretation from a Qanon-adjacent fringe group that wants to dismantle the government by making it too dysfunctional to work. It also creates a strange right for the judiciary to regulate how Congress and the executive choose to work together.

First off I'm not even talking about the delegation problem that's a whole other kettle of fish

That's said The arguments against Congressional delegation to the executive existed long before qanon and the arguments of limited congressional power date back to before 1789 so unless q anon existed in 1700's then you're just using a modern fringe group in a very poor attempt to sideline the conversation no different than calling everything that you disagree with racist or sexist or some other ism

For there still this idea that Congress and the executive should work together as a novel one and not one shared by the Constitution separately equal is critical to the functioning of our governance The key word there being separate.

The cozy relationship between the executive and Congress is a problem

I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.

Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post.

It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.

>>It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.

If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it...

But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required

I mean if you don't want to be federally regulated for air travel, you can just fly intrastate. Southwest famously operated like this in the pre-deregulation era and became the poster child for federal airline deregulation. Though I don't think anyone is dumb enough to risk reputational suicide by flying a grounded plane intrastate.

Yes that giant truck hole opened by Wickard that has become a catch all that means the federal government can regulated anything

However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc

The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.

The Supremacy clause reserves no rights for the people. Only for states.

Only a state can challenge a law based on the Supremacy clause.

The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedent over state laws.

The Tenth Amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people at large.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of some rights does not mean people don't have other, unenumerated rights.

No ruling aligns with this interpretation from any court opinion.

Nor would such an opinion apply to corporations.

You do not get "rights" which are the ability to ignore federal law because you decided the federal government wasn't allowed to do something.

The only successful challenges have been based on enumerated rights outside of states sueing based on the tenth.