FTC can not make laws. It does not matter how much you want this to be law. It must be passed by Congress.
Even then, it wouldn’t hold in intrastate cases since the Commerce clause doesn’t provide for that.
Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
61–70 of 222 posts
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#62The title deserves an award for the most use of negatives.
If someone does a convert this headline to a mathematical proof tool I'll die happy.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, thing…
> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the…
> The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will.
Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems.
First, what does the regulator think the law says.
Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done.
Third, what does the law actually say.
The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims.
An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#64[flagged]
If we remove all the double negatives it becomes "Judge keep FTC enforcing non-compete agreements" or "Judge stops FTC from enforcing compete agreements" neither of which make sense. The FTC doesn't enforce non-competes and there is no such thing as a "compete" agreement. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting the fix is here.
More readable title:
Judge Blocks FTC's Non-Compete Ban, Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#65I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable…
> Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you.
Ex post facto laws are generally unconstitutional. Generally -- especially as it imposes a new punishment after you've already been punished.
Something like this would almost certainly be implemented as "X driving infractions committed on or after [date law is effective]."
[edit] in administrative law, retroactive application is only permitted when congress has explicitly given retroactive power to an agency.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we remove all the double negatives it becomes "Judge keep FTC enforcing non-compete agreements" or "Judge stops FTC from enforcing compete agreements" neither of which make sense. The FTC doesn't enforce non-competes and there is no such thing as a "compete" agreement. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting the fix is here.
More readable title: Judge Blocks FTC's Non-Compete Ban, Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
Thanks from non native English reader that now understands what's going on :).
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we remove all the double negatives it becomes "Judge keep FTC enforcing non-compete agreements" or "Judge stops FTC from enforcing compete agreements" neither of which make sense. The FTC doesn't enforce non-competes and there is no such thing as a "compete" agreement. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting the fix is here.
More readable title: Judge Blocks FTC's Non-Compete Ban, Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
> Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
Potential harm to business, oh no. Might as well repeal the 13th amendment while we are at it. Imagine how much more competitive American companies would be if they didn't have to pay for silly stuff like salaries.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#68I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed.
It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#69I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable…
> Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you. Ex post facto laws are generally unconstitutional. Generally -- especially as it imposes a new punishment after you've already been punished. Something like this would almost certainly be imp…
This is not an ex post facto law - the question is purely "are the terms of your contract enforceable?". For example I can make a contract that has a term "all people of gender/race/age X must be paid no more that 50% of the amount paid to people of gender/race/age Y", but if I were to then sue a person that agreed to this contract they would immediately be able to say "that term is not enforceable".
The FTC ruling on non-competes is no different - no one is saying "a non-compete clause breaks the law in a way that would allow criminal or civil suits", they are saying "this clause is not enforceable" (plenty of standard contract terms are not enforceable depending on state and/or country, and the unenforceable nature of the term does not - for better or worse - invalidate the entire contract).
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?
The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, thing…
> if Trump gets re-elected [...] the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
Whuh? I don't even—would the quarters in your pocket happen to depict George Washington with a pointed goatee?
On mine he's clean-shaven, from a timeline where "the left" has been the side consistently arguing for some very important limits on executive power, regardless of whether "their" candidate entered the office later, such as:
* Remember all those years of "Unitary Executive Theory" under the Bush administration, and how it was opposed and kept getting opposed?
* Everything about the Constitution-free-zone at Guantanamo, both its formation and failed executive attempts to dissolve it?
* The thing about the Emoluments clause, and whether Presidents can solicit and accept bribes?
* The thing about whether Presidents can self-pardon?
* The Supreme Court case about whether Presidents have blanket immunity in office which would allow them to order the assassination of their rivals?
Those should ring a tintinnabulation of bells, even before other less-legalistic notes, such as consistent belief that "President For Life" and praising foreign dictators for having dictatorial power are taboo.