4 ms·
The need to shift responsibility for legislating back to the legislature is one of the conservative ideals that I strongly agree with, even though I sit on the
by ashtonkem 6y ago
The need to shift responsibility for legislating back to the legislature is one of the conservative ideals that I strongly agree with, even though I sit on the left hand side of the spectrum.
Currently our system depends on legislating in the executive (EOs & regulatory bodies like the FDA given the power of law) and in the legislature. To my eye this has been an utter disaster; as it has both decoupled the legislating process from voting, and crippled the one deliberative body that citizens have some control over.
- sitkack 6y agoJust because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! Wanting effective representative legislators and legislation should be a quality of all citizens. I think having non-effective legislators and having a powerful executive and judicial branch is an effective method to remove citizen control of government. It is on purpose.
- ashtonkem 6y ago> Just because someone from a political ideology says something you agree with doesn't mean for an instant you agree with their ideology! I’m aware of this, I’m just disclosing my own general stance for rhetorical effect. > It is on purpose I don’t think we got here on purpose; I think we got here on accident. History is just too full of random turns and twists caused by external events and opposing parties for there to often be a grand plan to anything; dumb luck explains a lot of things. Now that we’re here, I do believe that the lack of any effective solutions is probably deliberate. The current people in power gain far too much from the status quo to actually offer up meaningful reforms.
- sitkack 6y agoI am aware, but we need to be able to say the truth without caveats and without saying everything that those we disagree with is incorrect.
- NotSammyHagar 6y agoWell the leg is supposed to be the check on the executive. Esp because the president names the judges the checks can be removed through that sequence.
- mcguire 6y agoWait, that's a conservative ideal? As far as I can see from their behavior, the conservatives are just as happy not having the responsibility as anyone else; most of their talk about "legislation from the bench" and "overreaching regulations" has been little more than attacks on abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and so on. Further, when they have had the opportunity, they have been completely unable to legislate, even so far as to reverse previous legislation that they hate.
- tzs 6y agoSo if the FDA wants to make a change to, say, the requirements for nutritional labels on food, it would require the House and Senate to pass a bill and the President to sign it? If the FCC wants to, say, lower the minimum required channel separation in a particular band, that too would need a passed bill and a Presidential signature? I doubt that that is practical.
- ashtonkem 6y agoThe scope of that power has to be dialed back significantly. Currently the FDA has the unchecked power to create federal felonies, because failure to comply with FDA regulations is a felony. I’m sure most people agree that having a FDA is good, as is having an enforcement mechanism. But giving an unelected member of the executive branch the ability to effectively legislate alone is kind of a crazy power to leave totally unchecked. This power is exactly what creates the CrimeADay twitter feed, since these federal regulations are both insanely minute and often not very well thought out. My favorite example is that it’s a felony to sell shredded cream cheese.
- potiuper 6y agoCream cheese source please?
- elihu 6y agoThe powers of the FDA aren't totally unchecked. There's an old law called the Administrative Procedures Act. If I understand it right, it basically says (among other things) that government agencies that make rules have to have good reasons for those rules, and that they should be consistent with the purpose of the agency as described in the laws Congress passes delegating authority to that agency. So, if the FDA creates a rule that whistling the national anthem while riding a unicycle on the deck of an aircraft carrier in active service is against the law, citizens adversely affected by that rule can sue the agency and (if successful) have the rule overturned by the courts because the FDA was not granted authority over those things. I expect it might be possible to challenge the rule against grated cream cheese even if it's within the scope of the FDAs authority if the rule doesn't serve any legitimate purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(...