I think most of this is attributable more so to the abolition of serfdom and the industrial revolution than the communist one. The US also had those improve during the same period too.
No American court is going to hold an American company who fired (presumably) an American who (presumably) works on American soil liable under that. You'd be better off looking for local statutes that offer protections.
Assuming dissenting opinions are all bots isn't a good path forwards. Some people will disagree with you. Some with me. But on matters of opinion. Also who the hell would bother to bot this niche site/fediverse.
There's also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That'd be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.
Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.
Jefferson did write he wanted it remade every ~20 years. But that was a personal belief of his not the general understanding when the constitution was adopted.
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".
https://www.tpr.org/arts-culture/2022-03-28/art-history-and-controversy-come-to-a-head-in-downtown-san-antonio
The installation was mocking them not idolizing them.