3 ms·

> You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to

> You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to it and never bother actually representing its constituencies. This doesn't make much sense either. Agencies administrators are usually appointed by elected representatives as matter experts. Under the assumption that actions cannot be taken by experts chosen by elected representatives, we should gut every single federal agency out there.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
The EPA is under the executive branch. The executive branch exist to enforce the laws not to create them doesn't matter how expert their administrators are. They don't exist to create the law. Separation of powers.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  I guess we should void all executive orders, then.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    I mean executive orders are directives to the executive department. They don't make new laws or aren't supposed to.
    - freemint 4y ago
      Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason why the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to regulate that. That is subject matter experts which are not interested in party politics do a better job at keeping up with relevant research.
      - db48x 4y ago
        When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.
        edmcnulty101 4y ago
        >The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea Thank you for having a sane take on this. I hate how the media is trying to frame it as an environmental issue when it's actually a governmental power issue. If our elected officials want to give the executive branch that power they need to get to work and pass those laws.
        db48x 4y ago
        One thing I liked about this Supreme Court decision is that it pointed out that part of the EPA’s unconstitutional new rule was a cap and trade system for CO₂, which Congress has tried half a dozen times in recent years to implement. Congress wasn’t able to find a system that satisfied enough people to get it passed, but the fact that they were trying so hard is proof that Congress did not think that this authority had been delegated to anyone.

edmcnulty101 4y ago

The EPA is under the executive branch. The executive branch exist to enforce the laws not to create them doesn't matter how expert their administrators are. They don't exist to create the law. Separation of powers.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
I guess we should void all executive orders, then.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  I mean executive orders are directives to the executive department. They don't make new laws or aren't supposed to.
  - freemint 4y ago
    Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason why the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to regulate that. That is subject matter experts which are not interested in party politics do a better job at keeping up with relevant research.
    - db48x 4y ago
      When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        >The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea Thank you for having a sane take on this. I hate how the media is trying to frame it as an environmental issue when it's actually a governmental power issue. If our elected officials want to give the executive branch that power they need to get to work and pass those laws.
        db48x 4y ago
        One thing I liked about this Supreme Court decision is that it pointed out that part of the EPA’s unconstitutional new rule was a cap and trade system for CO₂, which Congress has tried half a dozen times in recent years to implement. Congress wasn’t able to find a system that satisfied enough people to get it passed, but the fact that they were trying so hard is proof that Congress did not think that this authority had been delegated to anyone.