5 ms·

Eh, it's not as bad as you think. We (congress) gave the FCC the authority to do this. Granted, we didn't quite understand the implications when we did, but i

Eh, it's not as bad as you think. We (congress) gave the FCC the authority to do this. Granted, we didn't quite understand the implications when we did, but it is still a democratic process.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
LOL. Yes, I understand how the regulatory process works. Apologies if I seemed to mislead anyone. There is nothing unconstitutional going on. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the regulatory agencies have immense power in our society -- granted to them by Congress. For instance, the DEA can classify new drugs as dangerous, including setting what the jail time will be for possession -- and Congress has virtually no role[1]. Used to be it took an entire constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but now a commission does the same work and there's little publicity. [1] Ok, so they have "oversight", but as somebody who has seen oversight behind the scenes, and watched a lot of it on C-SPAN, color me unimpressed. EDIT: Another good one is the EPA classifying CO2 -- the air we breathe -- as being under it's regulatory guidance. Now they made provision so that it only covers large producers of CO2, but that was their decision as an agency. There was no public debate or vote in Congress. Just a bunch of guys sitting around a conference table. Once again, I support the outcome in this case. I'm not trying to argue that it's a bad outcome. Just not crazy about the way we got here, or the implications for broadband 20 years from now.
- francoisdevlin 16y ago
  Ah, I see what you're getting at now. I'll now take the ostrich approach (stick your head in the ground & pretend it's okay) when it comes to dealing with specific government agencies. I don't want to know the details.
- gte910h 16y ago
  Part of their oversight is the court system. Legislative branch sets out what should happen (but misses details) Executive branch fills in the details via implementation Judicial branch tells them when they screwed up the details or the legislative branch did something that conflicts with higher law.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    This thread is turning into a civics lesson. Yes, you are correct. "Oversight" committees are set up by Congress to manage the authority they were given. These are -- well, start watching some if you'd like to know what they are. And don't let the Congressmen tell you their staff is on top of it. Managing Congressional staff is something the various agencies have learned a long, long time ago. The agency itself is a part of the executive branch. So theoretically they report to the president. In practice, however, the government is a huge thing. It is highly unusual to be within 3 people of reporting to the executive. The president makes political appointments, and the top people at each agency are those who manage those guys. Usually contractors are brought in to create a lot of presentations and such so that staff can show to the political hack how great the agency is. Over time agencies get very, very good at managing the hacks and resisting change. After all, the agency is full of people there for life. These guys are just passing through. It's not unusual for the president to bring in activists or ex-corporate types as their political hacks. After all, these guys are contributors and they are interested and qualified (but also have many hidden agendas) The courts technically oversee whether or not the agencies act in a constitutional manner -- the idea being that although Congress can delegate huge swaths of its power to agencies, it can't delegate something it never had. Appellate courts step in when federal agencies overstep, but historically in an ad-hoc manner. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2647783 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2647783 The worst abuses with the most political imapct are caught. Lots of little guys get trampled.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      > the idea being that although Congress can delegate huge swaths of its power to agencies, it can't delegate something it never had. Also, as in this FCC case, there is the matter of whether or not Congress gave them the power to do X in the first place.
      - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        Cue up story about defense attorneys and other groups pitching together to ask congress to tighten up their language because the wording is so vague in places that they are making criminals out of people for clerical errors. Also other groups protesting the use of huge bills and last-minute additions to make law.
- lutorm 16y ago
  Your EPA example is misleading since a) new regulations like that always have a public comment period and there certainly was a debate about that decision, and b) the supreme court has agreed that regulating CO2 falls under the EPA's charter. (And CO2 "the air we breathe" in the same way that nitrous oxides are, they'll kill you in concentrations high enough and is not useful to humans in any way.) What you are painting as a demon I think of as giving regulators flexibility to adapt to a changing world. It couldn't work otherwise, if everything had to be spelled out exactly by Congress do you really think it would work better?

Eh, it's not as bad as you think. We (congress) gave the FCC the authority to do this. Granted, we didn't quite understand the implications when we did, but it is still a democratic process.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

LOL. Yes, I understand how the regulatory process works. Apologies if I seemed to mislead anyone. There is nothing unconstitutional going on. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the regulatory agencies have immense power in our society -- granted to them by Congress. For instance, the DEA can classify new drugs as dangerous, including setting what the jail time will be for possession -- and Congress has virtually no role[1]. Used to be it took an entire constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but now a commission does the same work and there's little publicity. [1] Ok, so they have "oversight", but as somebody who has seen oversight behind the scenes, and watched a lot of it on C-SPAN, color me unimpressed. EDIT: Another good one is the EPA classifying CO2 -- the air we breathe -- as being under it's regulatory guidance. Now they made provision so that it only covers large producers of CO2, but that was their decision as an agency. There was no public debate or vote in Congress. Just a bunch of guys sitting around a conference table. Once again, I support the outcome in this case. I'm not trying to argue that it's a bad outcome. Just not crazy about the way we got here, or the implications for broadband 20 years from now.

francoisdevlin 16y ago
Ah, I see what you're getting at now. I'll now take the ostrich approach (stick your head in the ground & pretend it's okay) when it comes to dealing with specific government agencies. I don't want to know the details.
gte910h 16y ago
Part of their oversight is the court system. Legislative branch sets out what should happen (but misses details) Executive branch fills in the details via implementation Judicial branch tells them when they screwed up the details or the legislative branch did something that conflicts with higher law.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  This thread is turning into a civics lesson. Yes, you are correct. "Oversight" committees are set up by Congress to manage the authority they were given. These are -- well, start watching some if you'd like to know what they are. And don't let the Congressmen tell you their staff is on top of it. Managing Congressional staff is something the various agencies have learned a long, long time ago. The agency itself is a part of the executive branch. So theoretically they report to the president. In practice, however, the government is a huge thing. It is highly unusual to be within 3 people of reporting to the executive. The president makes political appointments, and the top people at each agency are those who manage those guys. Usually contractors are brought in to create a lot of presentations and such so that staff can show to the political hack how great the agency is. Over time agencies get very, very good at managing the hacks and resisting change. After all, the agency is full of people there for life. These guys are just passing through. It's not unusual for the president to bring in activists or ex-corporate types as their political hacks. After all, these guys are contributors and they are interested and qualified (but also have many hidden agendas) The courts technically oversee whether or not the agencies act in a constitutional manner -- the idea being that although Congress can delegate huge swaths of its power to agencies, it can't delegate something it never had. Appellate courts step in when federal agencies overstep, but historically in an ad-hoc manner. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2647783 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2647783 The worst abuses with the most political imapct are caught. Lots of little guys get trampled.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    > the idea being that although Congress can delegate huge swaths of its power to agencies, it can't delegate something it never had. Also, as in this FCC case, there is the matter of whether or not Congress gave them the power to do X in the first place.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      Cue up story about defense attorneys and other groups pitching together to ask congress to tighten up their language because the wording is so vague in places that they are making criminals out of people for clerical errors. Also other groups protesting the use of huge bills and last-minute additions to make law.
lutorm 16y ago
Your EPA example is misleading since a) new regulations like that always have a public comment period and there certainly was a debate about that decision, and b) the supreme court has agreed that regulating CO2 falls under the EPA's charter. (And CO2 "the air we breathe" in the same way that nitrous oxides are, they'll kill you in concentrations high enough and is not useful to humans in any way.) What you are painting as a demon I think of as giving regulators flexibility to adapt to a changing world. It couldn't work otherwise, if everything had to be spelled out exactly by Congress do you really think it would work better?