5 ms·

The US Congress better get to work. They've spent way too much time asleep at the wheel, giving the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever their whims a

by asguy 4y ago

The US Congress better get to work. They've spent way too much time asleep at the wheel, giving the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever their whims are, rather than passing actual law.

rat87 4y ago
Or you know they could delegate their authority to an agency staffed with experts. I'm all for Congress actually doing its job but we all know they won't and that passing each regulation by hand isn't possible without some sort of parliamentary system where legislative and executive branches are combined
- worker_person 4y ago
  What do you do when an agency exceeds its authority? Say FDA decides that houses can make people better or sicker. So they start passing housing regulations. This would be a drastic overreach outside of their law. It's experts making decision. They may even be correct. But according to todays ruling congress would need to authorize such a broad power grab. This is what has been happening for decades, the court is finally telling Congress to get off its rear and do its job.
  - drewrv 4y ago
    Couldn't congress "get off its rear and do its job" by forbidding the FDA from regulating housing? Requiring every regulatory action to require an affirmative from congress is absurd. Besides that, congress controls the budget for these agencies. Simply by funding the EPA and the FDA, it demonstrates a level of support for their actions.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Not every regulatory action requires congressional affirmation. Congress is allowed to delegate their legislative authority to a third party, but it must do so through an intelligible clause. This clause states a clear objective function to the agency. The issue is when agencies make laws that are unrelated to, in conflict with, or do not clearly achieve the goals of the intelligible clause because those are laws that the agency is not empowered to create.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Congress giving the EPA a mandate over emissions of pollutants and the EPA setting emissions targets for coal power plants seems to be a clear and objective function through an intelligible clause. Addendum : The CAA doesn't contain a list of pollutants. It contains a definition, which CO2 fits. This already went before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA and set the precedent that CO2 must be considered a pollutant under the CAA. This precedent was already challenged by a few states and was upheld, and the Supreme Court didn't overrule it today either, instead going for another line of argument.
        SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        According the Clean Air Act, C02 is not a "pollutant". The EPA can't just decide that it is, and start issuing economy changing directives - regardless if they are right. This should be very easy for congress to fix if they want to.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, you're right. I was initially thinking this came down to an intelligible clause similar to how people argue OSHA is unconstitutional due to competiting intelligible clauses. My failure was thinking new and existing pollutants needed to have the same solution, and the constraints for arriving to the correct solution were in competition. Upon further review: a reading of the SCOTUS pdf combined with the referenced laws, I do now believe this was a bad conclusion. Major questions doctrine seems unbased in an measurable way. Instead, the court should have ruled that the EPA currently had the authority to do this as it was clearly granted in law, and if Congress wanted to limit it, then they would need to do so legislatively. Not the current decision which says that Congress probably didn't mean what they wrote into law because they dun deligated a lot of power. Edit: someone else wrote this, which does make sense if their supposition is. Regardless, I'll need to read more of the laws beyond 111d. > No it isn’t. The Clean Air Act is all about requiring polluters to use control technology, and requiring new sources to use better and more expensive control technology than existing sources. That’s the program Congress designed. Restructuring the energy industry to address climate is a different solution to a different problem, related only by the commonality of emissions into air. It’s like using drug laws to regulate processed foods because both involve harm caused by ingesting things.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    I answered this question above but to answer you directly Congress can use the lawmaking process to overturn any regulation they find egregious. They can also pass laws updating the regulatory powers of an agency. Don't believe the congresspeople claiming "there's nothing they can do" about regulatory agencies. They're lying. Shocking, I know! :)
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      You have identified the core of the regulatory challenge: Congress shirks responsibility. My question, what path makes Congress more likely to be responsible (and, upstream of that, get voters to hold them responsible)? Do we want regulations to multiply or languish in the absence of congressional action? I think voters are more likely to demand practical, governance oriented representatives if the regulatory agencies aren't bandaging over the problems. Do we want face the pain now or will we just keep kicking the can down the road?
      - craftsman 4y ago
        The law can provide the authority to act, the boundaries of action, and define the intent. The agencies, by taking on the role of determining & implementing the details of Congress’ directive, reduce the overt political influence that tends to dilute or pollute (no pun intended) the aims of the legislation. If Congress finds that the agency has stepped outside its mandate, they can correct the legislation to be more specific.
jnwatson 4y ago
Congress is broken. The system is fundamentally flawed. The Senate by Constitutional design is undemocratic and non-representative. Coupled with the cloture rule it is an untenable system. Unless our failing voting systems accidentally elect a set of people capable of fixing the system, there’s no hope for Congressional action.
taylodl 4y ago
Just to be clear, are you saying every regulation created by the EPA, FDA, FTC, FCC, SEC, et. al. should be a law passed by Congress and the Senate, get refereed, updated law passed by Congress and the Senate, and go forward for presidential approval? I just want to make sure I understand your intent. As it is, or was as the case may be, this lawmaking process could be used to overrule a regulation that was viewed to be errant. The lawmaking apparatus would only be invoked on an exceptional basis. It seems as though you're advocating for the invocation of the lawmaking apparatus on a regular basis? That's what I'm wanting to confirm whether that's what you're actually saying.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  Not the original poster, but yes, in a democracy I would like our elected lawmakers to do their job of making laws. I'm happy to have bills drafted by experts in the regulatory bodies. However, those experts are not accountable in any direct way to those being governed by the laws/regulations that they create. I'm still attached to the whole "consent of the governed" idea. I'm highly opposed to "divine right of the technocrats (to whom we shall all bow for their superior knowledge and genetically encoded abilities)".
  - tankenmate 4y ago
    The US Code is already 185,000 pages long. If every regulation derived from those laws was included it would easily come to 20x that amount; so about 3.6+ million pages long. If every page of that had to be scrutinised by Congress then the legislative branch would grind to a halt. Just like the fact that one person alone can't do everything in an organisation, Congress physically can't author, vote and oversee every regulation from every law. There just aren't enough hours in the day.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...

by asguy 4y ago

The US Congress better get to work. They've spent way too much time asleep at the wheel, giving the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever their whims are, rather than passing actual law.

rat87 4y ago

Or you know they could delegate their authority to an agency staffed with experts. I'm all for Congress actually doing its job but we all know they won't and that passing each regulation by hand isn't possible without some sort of parliamentary system where legislative and executive branches are combined

worker_person 4y ago
What do you do when an agency exceeds its authority? Say FDA decides that houses can make people better or sicker. So they start passing housing regulations. This would be a drastic overreach outside of their law. It's experts making decision. They may even be correct. But according to todays ruling congress would need to authorize such a broad power grab. This is what has been happening for decades, the court is finally telling Congress to get off its rear and do its job.
- drewrv 4y ago
  Couldn't congress "get off its rear and do its job" by forbidding the FDA from regulating housing? Requiring every regulatory action to require an affirmative from congress is absurd. Besides that, congress controls the budget for these agencies. Simply by funding the EPA and the FDA, it demonstrates a level of support for their actions.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Not every regulatory action requires congressional affirmation. Congress is allowed to delegate their legislative authority to a third party, but it must do so through an intelligible clause. This clause states a clear objective function to the agency. The issue is when agencies make laws that are unrelated to, in conflict with, or do not clearly achieve the goals of the intelligible clause because those are laws that the agency is not empowered to create.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Congress giving the EPA a mandate over emissions of pollutants and the EPA setting emissions targets for coal power plants seems to be a clear and objective function through an intelligible clause. Addendum : The CAA doesn't contain a list of pollutants. It contains a definition, which CO2 fits. This already went before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA and set the precedent that CO2 must be considered a pollutant under the CAA. This precedent was already challenged by a few states and was upheld, and the Supreme Court didn't overrule it today either, instead going for another line of argument.
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        According the Clean Air Act, C02 is not a "pollutant". The EPA can't just decide that it is, and start issuing economy changing directives - regardless if they are right. This should be very easy for congress to fix if they want to.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, you're right. I was initially thinking this came down to an intelligible clause similar to how people argue OSHA is unconstitutional due to competiting intelligible clauses. My failure was thinking new and existing pollutants needed to have the same solution, and the constraints for arriving to the correct solution were in competition. Upon further review: a reading of the SCOTUS pdf combined with the referenced laws, I do now believe this was a bad conclusion. Major questions doctrine seems unbased in an measurable way. Instead, the court should have ruled that the EPA currently had the authority to do this as it was clearly granted in law, and if Congress wanted to limit it, then they would need to do so legislatively. Not the current decision which says that Congress probably didn't mean what they wrote into law because they dun deligated a lot of power. Edit: someone else wrote this, which does make sense if their supposition is. Regardless, I'll need to read more of the laws beyond 111d. > No it isn’t. The Clean Air Act is all about requiring polluters to use control technology, and requiring new sources to use better and more expensive control technology than existing sources. That’s the program Congress designed. Restructuring the energy industry to address climate is a different solution to a different problem, related only by the commonality of emissions into air. It’s like using drug laws to regulate processed foods because both involve harm caused by ingesting things.
- taylodl 4y ago
  I answered this question above but to answer you directly Congress can use the lawmaking process to overturn any regulation they find egregious. They can also pass laws updating the regulatory powers of an agency. Don't believe the congresspeople claiming "there's nothing they can do" about regulatory agencies. They're lying. Shocking, I know! :)
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    You have identified the core of the regulatory challenge: Congress shirks responsibility. My question, what path makes Congress more likely to be responsible (and, upstream of that, get voters to hold them responsible)? Do we want regulations to multiply or languish in the absence of congressional action? I think voters are more likely to demand practical, governance oriented representatives if the regulatory agencies aren't bandaging over the problems. Do we want face the pain now or will we just keep kicking the can down the road?
    - craftsman 4y ago
      The law can provide the authority to act, the boundaries of action, and define the intent. The agencies, by taking on the role of determining & implementing the details of Congress’ directive, reduce the overt political influence that tends to dilute or pollute (no pun intended) the aims of the legislation. If Congress finds that the agency has stepped outside its mandate, they can correct the legislation to be more specific.

jnwatson 4y ago

Congress is broken. The system is fundamentally flawed. The Senate by Constitutional design is undemocratic and non-representative. Coupled with the cloture rule it is an untenable system. Unless our failing voting systems accidentally elect a set of people capable of fixing the system, there’s no hope for Congressional action.

taylodl 4y ago

Just to be clear, are you saying every regulation created by the EPA, FDA, FTC, FCC, SEC, et. al. should be a law passed by Congress and the Senate, get refereed, updated law passed by Congress and the Senate, and go forward for presidential approval? I just want to make sure I understand your intent. As it is, or was as the case may be, this lawmaking process could be used to overrule a regulation that was viewed to be errant. The lawmaking apparatus would only be invoked on an exceptional basis. It seems as though you're advocating for the invocation of the lawmaking apparatus on a regular basis? That's what I'm wanting to confirm whether that's what you're actually saying.

biomcgary 4y ago
Not the original poster, but yes, in a democracy I would like our elected lawmakers to do their job of making laws. I'm happy to have bills drafted by experts in the regulatory bodies. However, those experts are not accountable in any direct way to those being governed by the laws/regulations that they create. I'm still attached to the whole "consent of the governed" idea. I'm highly opposed to "divine right of the technocrats (to whom we shall all bow for their superior knowledge and genetically encoded abilities)".
- tankenmate 4y ago
  The US Code is already 185,000 pages long. If every regulation derived from those laws was included it would easily come to 20x that amount; so about 3.6+ million pages long. If every page of that had to be scrutinised by Congress then the legislative branch would grind to a halt. Just like the fact that one person alone can't do everything in an organisation, Congress physically can't author, vote and oversee every regulation from every law. There just aren't enough hours in the day.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...