4 ms·

It's just odd on its face that so many of these decisions, which absolutely have an otherwise legislative character, are being made by the executive branch.

• jimrandomh 11y ago
  The legislative branch has been derelict in its duties for a decade. Someone has to pick up the slack.
• eli 11y ago
  The FCC is an independent agency created by Congress, not part of the executive branch.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    The FCC is an independent executive agency, and is part of the executive branch outside of the scope of the executive departments. It is, to be sure, created by Congress, but that's true of most of the executive branch, including the executive departments.
    • eli 11y ago
      No. That is simply wrong. The President cannot nominate Commissioners except to fill a vacancy, nor can he order them to take any action. They do not work for him. Congress created the FCC and Congress has oversight of the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do "An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation."
• smt88 11y ago
  As someone else said, the FCC isn't created or controlled by the executive branch. Many decisions with a "legislative character" are, however, made by the executive branch through executive agencies (Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Homeland Security, etc.) These agencies only exist with the blessing of Congress, though, so they technically derive their power from the legislative branch. If that sounds weird, it is. The legality and limits of executive agencies is still somewhat of an open question, even though they've been around for 150+ years.
  • unethical_ban 11y ago
    It's frustrating how much Congress has ceded to these agencies. it's a loophole in democracy.
    • smt88 11y ago
      To me, it's a mixed bag. For example, the EPA is working (though not enough) to prevent the end of human life on earth. That's something I wouldn't trust Congress to do, since they seem to be gridlocked forever on all common sense issues. But then there are agencies like the USDA, which fed "pink slime" to children for years in order to help out the cattle industry[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime
      • jessaustin 11y ago
        There's nothing wrong with pink slime. If you want to eat cheap nutritious beef, it's a good thing. If you're a meat-packer trying to be less wasteful, it's a good thing. If you think the best pretext on which to wage class war is the content of various school lunches, apparently it's golden. Pink slime is only a marginally-bad thing for cattle ranchers like me. I would benefit if people decided to only eat ribeye, because ribeye is a small portion of the total carcass and that would drive up the price of cattle. Conversely, every beef patty sold that includes 10% pink slime lowers the price of cattle just a little bit.
        • danieltillett 11y ago
          While I think you have made a plausible argument, I am none too keen on eating pink slime if I have a choice.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > It's frustrating how much Congress has ceded to these agencies. It hasn't ceded any; Congress retains all legislative power. Regulatory power is a delegation (and the degree to which power can be delegated is limited), not a cession. > it's a loophole in democracy. It may not be something you like, but I don't think its really anything other than the system working as designed; executive agencies making decisions within parameters set by Congress through legislation, including decision that involve notice of predictable ways that executive power will be applied, within the limits set by legislation, in future cases (i.e., regulation) was not an idea that the founders would have been surprised by.