3 ms·

Trying to get clarification, as a layman here I think I'm missing your point. My understanding is that laws are by their nature kind of vague because the world

by rgbrgb 4y ago

Trying to get clarification, as a layman here I think I'm missing your point. My understanding is that laws are by their nature kind of vague because the world is full of edge cases and they always require interpretation as they encounter new cases. > hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies. Are you referring to the judicial branch? Isn't that the system laid out in the founding docs? > We jiggered with this What jiggering are you referring to? Without understanding your point, I'm all for this legislation as we've seen so many recent US officials enrich themselves with the power they wield.

Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago
> hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies. I think they mean executive agencies like the FDA, FCC, EPA, etc. These agencies make rules that effectively carry the force of law. For example, the BATFE is (in)famous for arbitrarily changing their rules to criminalize things they don't like, with no new mandate from the legislature. These rules are effectively laws, because if you break them, you can go to jail for many years. > We jiggered with this I think they are referring to the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, which made it so Senators are elected by the people instead of selected by state legislatures.
pookha 4y ago
I'm pretty sure he's railing against an EU commission-like government where unelected bureaucrats create legislation. In the US only elected representatives can draft legislation (House or Senate).
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Constitutionally you are correct. However, the Federal Register is approximately 4 times larger than the US Code. That is four times more rules that are enforced like laws than actual laws passed by Congress. Additionally, agencies are under the Executive that is explicitly prohibited from making laws. Congress in many respects has abdicated it lawmaking authority to the Executive by creating administrative agencies. Violating agency rules will not land you in a court with a jury of your peers as required by the Constitution either. You will end up in a court run by the accusing agency with a judge appointed by the agency. But hey, they aren't laws just rules with criminal and financial penalties for violating them.
deltarholamda 4y ago
>Are you referring to the judicial branch? Isn't that the system laid out in the founding docs No, I'm talking about the executive branch agencies. An example would be, Congress passes a protected species act; they empower the EPA to regulate how this protected species act is enforced; the EPA makes policy of how the protected species act is enforced. This isn't completely insane, as it's a complicated process. But in actuality, what happens is the EPA becomes a revolving door for special interests ("I worked at the EPA for 5 years, and now I'm head of Environmental Quality at BP!"), corporations "encourage" lawmakers to carve out exceptions in the law that help or protect the corporations, and the agency in general can be used as a weapon to selectively reward or punish people or companies while the ones who could be held accountable--the Congressional lawmakers--can wash their hands of all responsibility. ("It's the EPA, I didn't take away your farm because they found a mushroom species that's protected.") You're right that edge cases are hard. But the current paradigm of "enact sweeping reforms through vague legislation, and leave the details up to underpaid, overworked, and possibly ideological civil servants who can never be fired in any practical way" isn't sustainable. We know what happens, because it has happened. Legislators participate in the revolving door policy, too. They do favors for corporate sponsors, and later they get a job there, or with a lobbying group that is funded by corporate sponsors, or with some other back-scratching deal. While doing something about insider trading is a good thing, that's not the real problem, and it feels to me that something like this is more like a bone thrown to keep the yapping dog quiet.
Bloating 4y ago
Edge cases, often left to law enforcement to selectively enforce... lets see how that works out

by rgbrgb 4y ago

Zamiel_Snawley 4y ago

> hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies. I think they mean executive agencies like the FDA, FCC, EPA, etc. These agencies make rules that effectively carry the force of law. For example, the BATFE is (in)famous for arbitrarily changing their rules to criminalize things they don't like, with no new mandate from the legislature. These rules are effectively laws, because if you break them, you can go to jail for many years. > We jiggered with this I think they are referring to the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, which made it so Senators are elected by the people instead of selected by state legislatures.

pookha 4y ago

I'm pretty sure he's railing against an EU commission-like government where unelected bureaucrats create legislation. In the US only elected representatives can draft legislation (House or Senate).

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Constitutionally you are correct. However, the Federal Register is approximately 4 times larger than the US Code. That is four times more rules that are enforced like laws than actual laws passed by Congress. Additionally, agencies are under the Executive that is explicitly prohibited from making laws. Congress in many respects has abdicated it lawmaking authority to the Executive by creating administrative agencies. Violating agency rules will not land you in a court with a jury of your peers as required by the Constitution either. You will end up in a court run by the accusing agency with a judge appointed by the agency. But hey, they aren't laws just rules with criminal and financial penalties for violating them.

deltarholamda 4y ago

>Are you referring to the judicial branch? Isn't that the system laid out in the founding docs No, I'm talking about the executive branch agencies. An example would be, Congress passes a protected species act; they empower the EPA to regulate how this protected species act is enforced; the EPA makes policy of how the protected species act is enforced. This isn't completely insane, as it's a complicated process. But in actuality, what happens is the EPA becomes a revolving door for special interests ("I worked at the EPA for 5 years, and now I'm head of Environmental Quality at BP!"), corporations "encourage" lawmakers to carve out exceptions in the law that help or protect the corporations, and the agency in general can be used as a weapon to selectively reward or punish people or companies while the ones who could be held accountable--the Congressional lawmakers--can wash their hands of all responsibility. ("It's the EPA, I didn't take away your farm because they found a mushroom species that's protected.") You're right that edge cases are hard. But the current paradigm of "enact sweeping reforms through vague legislation, and leave the details up to underpaid, overworked, and possibly ideological civil servants who can never be fired in any practical way" isn't sustainable. We know what happens, because it has happened. Legislators participate in the revolving door policy, too. They do favors for corporate sponsors, and later they get a job there, or with a lobbying group that is funded by corporate sponsors, or with some other back-scratching deal. While doing something about insider trading is a good thing, that's not the real problem, and it feels to me that something like this is more like a bone thrown to keep the yapping dog quiet.

Bloating 4y ago

Edge cases, often left to law enforcement to selectively enforce... lets see how that works out