5 ms·

Isn’t regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch and enforcement handled by the respective department (sometimes executive)?

by yladiz 4y ago

oneoff786 4y ago
Those departments are largely executive agencies. The executive branch is supposed to enforce but over time it began to do both. The court is pulling this back now.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted here. This is a pretty factual statement. The environmental protection agency, for example, is an executive agency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    You're ignoring half your own statement?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Which part? That the executive branch is only supposed to enforce but over time has begun to legislate as well? Or the part about the Supreme Court ruling that executive agencies are acting beyond their scope?
phpisthebest 4y ago
Unfortunately (and that is another Area where the Supreme Court should start striking regulations down) the legislative branch often passes open ended ambiguous laws directing an agency to accomplish a open ended ambiguous "goal" or "directive" instead of passing actual specific laws. These are then "interpreted" by the agency into regulations. Which is why for example the ATF (excuse me BATFE today) can just redefine what is a "machine gun" under every administration making entire classes of products illegal or not on the whim of who ever runs that agency (or is president). This should be plainly unconstitutional as the legislative branch is not empowered by the constitution to delegate its power to the executive. legislative branch makes the laws and executive enforces the law. However in the US Today, the executive is both making and enforcing the law. That is not how it should be nor is it tenable for a free society to function
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  The DEA is another organization that is infamous for doing this. Or rather infamous for being handed such broad decision making authority. Like ATF though, it’s by design - it allows politicians to continue to make unpopular decisions without having to be held accountable for it.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  It isn't delegating its power, it's leaving the implementation to the executive branch because it doesn't know how to implement its goals. If the legislative branch was able to do this on its own, it would, but that would be a massive amount of work that they don't want and would do poorly if they tried.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    no, it allows politicians to continue to make unpopular decisions without having to be held accountable for it by the voters. "It is not us, it is that crazy FBI/DEA/EPA/ATF/CIA/NSA/<Insert Agency here>, if you elect us we will put a stop to them" and they never do
- rtpg 4y ago
  > This should be plainly unconstitutional as the legislative branch is not empowered by the constitution to delegate its power to the executive this is a fringe theory not agreed to by serious people, and used in a bad faith way by people who want to just dismantle the administrative state. The only logical conclusion from that thought process is no regulatory body can exist. Though the "big tent" about regulations being mishandled by SCOTUS is that SCOTUS will often just throw out plain text interpretation of statutes and regulations when it doesn't satisfy the majority's overall goals.
  - tiahura 4y ago
    West Virginia v EPA begs to differ.
    - 4y ago
nradov 4y ago
No. In most areas the legislative branch has delegated their authority to the executive branch, and appointed bureaucrats write the regulations. This is a problem due to lack of accountability. I hope that the Supreme Court will eventually eviscerate the authority of the executive branch to write regulations. If something needs to be regulated then Congress ought to pass a specific law about it, not pass the buck.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  How could Congress possibly keep up with all the issues affecting the country? Congress is a serial machine - it can pass < 1 bill at a time. Executive branch agencies are parallel machines.
  - nradov 4y ago
    There is no need for Congress to keep up with all the issues affecting the country. They should only legislate on issues where they have legitimate Constitutional authority without stretching the intended meaning of the commerce clause. Everything else can be left to the several states, or simply not regulated at all. In particular I hope the Supreme Court will eventually reverse the precedents established in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), United States v. Darby (1941), and United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters (1944). That would essentially destroy much of the federal government as we know it today, and good riddance.
wolverine876 4y ago
There are orders of magnitude too many decisions and too much analysis for Congress, whose bandwidth is < 1 bill simultaneously. If you think regulators move slowly now ... Congress delegates it to technical experts, who are appointed by an elected official (the President). Congress can always change the law if they are unhappy; they have the ulimate power.

Isn’t regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch and enforcement handled by the respective department (sometimes executive)?

by yladiz 4y ago

Isn’t regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch and enforcement handled by the respective department (sometimes executive)?

oneoff786 4y ago

Those departments are largely executive agencies. The executive branch is supposed to enforce but over time it began to do both. The court is pulling this back now.

oneoff786 4y ago
I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted here. This is a pretty factual statement. The environmental protection agency, for example, is an executive agency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  You're ignoring half your own statement?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Which part? That the executive branch is only supposed to enforce but over time has begun to legislate as well? Or the part about the Supreme Court ruling that executive agencies are acting beyond their scope?

phpisthebest 4y ago

Unfortunately (and that is another Area where the Supreme Court should start striking regulations down) the legislative branch often passes open ended ambiguous laws directing an agency to accomplish a open ended ambiguous "goal" or "directive" instead of passing actual specific laws. These are then "interpreted" by the agency into regulations. Which is why for example the ATF (excuse me BATFE today) can just redefine what is a "machine gun" under every administration making entire classes of products illegal or not on the whim of who ever runs that agency (or is president). This should be plainly unconstitutional as the legislative branch is not empowered by the constitution to delegate its power to the executive. legislative branch makes the laws and executive enforces the law. However in the US Today, the executive is both making and enforcing the law. That is not how it should be nor is it tenable for a free society to function

SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
The DEA is another organization that is infamous for doing this. Or rather infamous for being handed such broad decision making authority. Like ATF though, it’s by design - it allows politicians to continue to make unpopular decisions without having to be held accountable for it.
mullingitover 4y ago
It isn't delegating its power, it's leaving the implementation to the executive branch because it doesn't know how to implement its goals. If the legislative branch was able to do this on its own, it would, but that would be a massive amount of work that they don't want and would do poorly if they tried.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  no, it allows politicians to continue to make unpopular decisions without having to be held accountable for it by the voters. "It is not us, it is that crazy FBI/DEA/EPA/ATF/CIA/NSA/<Insert Agency here>, if you elect us we will put a stop to them" and they never do
rtpg 4y ago
> This should be plainly unconstitutional as the legislative branch is not empowered by the constitution to delegate its power to the executive this is a fringe theory not agreed to by serious people, and used in a bad faith way by people who want to just dismantle the administrative state. The only logical conclusion from that thought process is no regulatory body can exist. Though the "big tent" about regulations being mishandled by SCOTUS is that SCOTUS will often just throw out plain text interpretation of statutes and regulations when it doesn't satisfy the majority's overall goals.
- tiahura 4y ago
  West Virginia v EPA begs to differ.
  - 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

No. In most areas the legislative branch has delegated their authority to the executive branch, and appointed bureaucrats write the regulations. This is a problem due to lack of accountability. I hope that the Supreme Court will eventually eviscerate the authority of the executive branch to write regulations. If something needs to be regulated then Congress ought to pass a specific law about it, not pass the buck.

wolverine876 4y ago
How could Congress possibly keep up with all the issues affecting the country? Congress is a serial machine - it can pass < 1 bill at a time. Executive branch agencies are parallel machines.
- nradov 4y ago
  There is no need for Congress to keep up with all the issues affecting the country. They should only legislate on issues where they have legitimate Constitutional authority without stretching the intended meaning of the commerce clause. Everything else can be left to the several states, or simply not regulated at all. In particular I hope the Supreme Court will eventually reverse the precedents established in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), United States v. Darby (1941), and United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters (1944). That would essentially destroy much of the federal government as we know it today, and good riddance.

wolverine876 4y ago

There are orders of magnitude too many decisions and too much analysis for Congress, whose bandwidth is < 1 bill simultaneously. If you think regulators move slowly now ... Congress delegates it to technical experts, who are appointed by an elected official (the President). Congress can always change the law if they are unhappy; they have the ulimate power.