3 ms·

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 imp

by gte910h 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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.

by gte910h 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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.