4 ms·

It was a mistake putting these agencies under the executive in the first place. Gives the president too much power by far. No reason they can't be run directl

It was a mistake putting these agencies under the executive in the first place. Gives the president too much power by far. No reason they can't be run directly by congress.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> No reason they can't be run directly by congress What does this mean? You want the FTC to be more toothless? Because that's what removing it from the executive and placing it under the legislature does: it turns it into a fact-finding outfit with zero enforcement powers.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  If an executive agency can have legislative powers, then a legislative agency can also have executive powers.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > If an executive agency can have legislative powers, then a legislative agency can also have executive powers Sure. This isn't a hot take. The legislature can order the executive to take specific actions. It does so all the time. The reason every society in history separates or delineates its executive functions is because many tasks of government require faster action than a deliberative body can continuously commit to. Congress (big and slow) granting agencies (small and faster) limited rule-making powers increases the agencies' power. The executive granting the Congress limited executive powers (e.g. prosecuting contempt of Congress) doesn't confer an equal power transfer. The executive branch of any system is built to amplify and focus power; the legislature, to distribute it. That executive power, if vested in the Congress, would dissolve across the body. An FTC under the Congress would have the same authority as any Congressional subcommittee: infinite in theory, but relatively toothless in practice.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Why would an FTC whose officers were appointed by congressional committee rather than the president be any slower to act? Also, why does the FTC need to act so quickly? It operates through the court system, which is itself a slow moving deliberative body as it should be.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Why would an FTC whose officers were appointed by congressional committee rather than the president be any slower to act? Because its every action would be subject to Congressional rules and procedure. It's part of the Congress. That's what putting it under the legislature means. > why does the FTC need to act so quickly? Injunctions? Compelling testimony? Conducting investigations? You're confusing Congress with a sovereign Parliament.
        fallingknife 3y ago
        The head of such an agency can be given authority to act without consulting congress in just the same manner that the current FTC does not need to ask for presidential approval for every single thing it does.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > head of such an agency can be given authority to act without consulting congress No, they can't. Congress isn't sovereign, but it isn't bound by any prior Congress. You could create an exception to parliamentary procedure for the agency, like we do for e.g. CBO, a legislative agency, but it wouldn't be able to actually do anything. > the same manner that the current FTC does not need to ask for presidential approval The FTC was created as an independent agency by the FTCA of 1914. A law passed by the Congress and signed by the President. It exercises Article II powers freely and limited Article I rule-making powers delegated to it by the Congress. When the FTC takes executive action, it does so as an independent agency. When it invokes its rule-making authority, it's subject to all manner of checks and balances, from the President through the courts all the way to the Congress. Inverting that makes the agency useless. It would have rule-making authority similar to the Congress (i.e. subject to full passage and Presidential veto) but none of the executive powers. I'll admit, this is one of the more creative ways of de-fanging an unpopular agency that I've seen. (I still can't tell if it's parody criticism of Chevron.)
callalex 3y ago
That’s literally not how the branches of the US government work. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Your link is not how the branches of government work either. We changed that with the creation of agencies like the FTC. Most of the legislating in the US is now one by agencies under the executive branch that have had their authority delegated by congress. If we changed it once, we can change it again to give power back to congress and make it work more like it was supposed to.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    Then the same applies to the FCC, the EPA. I believe the goal is to reduce regulations to help businesses make more money.
themitigating 3y ago
There are so many regulations that congress would have to approve each one. They could have a large bill that has them all but imagine how often they would change especially if contentious. One year there could be a requirement about emissions from cars then the next none. It would create chaos and damage the country in my opinion.

It was a mistake putting these agencies under the executive in the first place. Gives the president too much power by far. No reason they can't be run directly by congress.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> No reason they can't be run directly by congress What does this mean? You want the FTC to be more toothless? Because that's what removing it from the executive and placing it under the legislature does: it turns it into a fact-finding outfit with zero enforcement powers.

fallingknife 3y ago
If an executive agency can have legislative powers, then a legislative agency can also have executive powers.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If an executive agency can have legislative powers, then a legislative agency can also have executive powers Sure. This isn't a hot take. The legislature can order the executive to take specific actions. It does so all the time. The reason every society in history separates or delineates its executive functions is because many tasks of government require faster action than a deliberative body can continuously commit to. Congress (big and slow) granting agencies (small and faster) limited rule-making powers increases the agencies' power. The executive granting the Congress limited executive powers (e.g. prosecuting contempt of Congress) doesn't confer an equal power transfer. The executive branch of any system is built to amplify and focus power; the legislature, to distribute it. That executive power, if vested in the Congress, would dissolve across the body. An FTC under the Congress would have the same authority as any Congressional subcommittee: infinite in theory, but relatively toothless in practice.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Why would an FTC whose officers were appointed by congressional committee rather than the president be any slower to act? Also, why does the FTC need to act so quickly? It operates through the court system, which is itself a slow moving deliberative body as it should be.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why would an FTC whose officers were appointed by congressional committee rather than the president be any slower to act? Because its every action would be subject to Congressional rules and procedure. It's part of the Congress. That's what putting it under the legislature means. > why does the FTC need to act so quickly? Injunctions? Compelling testimony? Conducting investigations? You're confusing Congress with a sovereign Parliament.
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        The head of such an agency can be given authority to act without consulting congress in just the same manner that the current FTC does not need to ask for presidential approval for every single thing it does.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > head of such an agency can be given authority to act without consulting congress No, they can't. Congress isn't sovereign, but it isn't bound by any prior Congress. You could create an exception to parliamentary procedure for the agency, like we do for e.g. CBO, a legislative agency, but it wouldn't be able to actually do anything. > the same manner that the current FTC does not need to ask for presidential approval The FTC was created as an independent agency by the FTCA of 1914. A law passed by the Congress and signed by the President. It exercises Article II powers freely and limited Article I rule-making powers delegated to it by the Congress. When the FTC takes executive action, it does so as an independent agency. When it invokes its rule-making authority, it's subject to all manner of checks and balances, from the President through the courts all the way to the Congress. Inverting that makes the agency useless. It would have rule-making authority similar to the Congress (i.e. subject to full passage and Presidential veto) but none of the executive powers. I'll admit, this is one of the more creative ways of de-fanging an unpopular agency that I've seen. (I still can't tell if it's parody criticism of Chevron.)

callalex 3y ago

That’s literally not how the branches of the US government work. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

fallingknife 3y ago
Your link is not how the branches of government work either. We changed that with the creation of agencies like the FTC. Most of the legislating in the US is now one by agencies under the executive branch that have had their authority delegated by congress. If we changed it once, we can change it again to give power back to congress and make it work more like it was supposed to.
- themitigating 3y ago
  Then the same applies to the FCC, the EPA. I believe the goal is to reduce regulations to help businesses make more money.

themitigating 3y ago

There are so many regulations that congress would have to approve each one. They could have a large bill that has them all but imagine how often they would change especially if contentious. One year there could be a requirement about emissions from cars then the next none. It would create chaos and damage the country in my opinion.