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

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?