5 ms·

There is also a supreme court case about if the fed has the power to do this without a law.

by Racing0461 3y ago

dataflow 3y ago
The power to propose it? Or the power to force it?
- Racing0461 3y ago
  The power of an executive branch agency to propose new rules. (ie new rule making without an act of congress).
  - dataflow 3y ago
    Proposing new rules isn't making new rules though? I would be surprised if anyone isn't allowed to propose new rules.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Proposing a rule in this context is a step in the process of enacting it, not offering up a suggestion to Congress.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        Okay but my question is still the same - is that step itself possibly illegal? I would think only the final step is what could be illegal.
    - Racing0461 3y ago
      The term "proposed" is used here where an executive branch agency gives notice to the federal registrar, waits the time needed for public comment, pretents to "ack" the public comments and passes said rule to then enforce. ie a law that pretty much bypasses congress. the supreme court seems interested in looking at how much power can congress give to the executive branch. see: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...
hiatus 3y ago
Here's more info on the case for others interested. https://thehill.com/business/4231072-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-debit-card-swipe-fees-case/ https://thehill.com/business/4231072-supreme-court-agrees-to...
tomschlick 3y ago
Government agencies should only be able to do what congress defines in law. A great example is ATF abusing the power to redefine what a pistol/rifle/machine gun are multiple times in the past decade. This leads to people who were previously compliant with the law, with prior written approval from the ATF, now are not compliant with their new definition and could face prosecution. All without any new law being passed, all being done by political appointees and bureaucrats.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  Government agencies exist because congress is lazy and writing good regulation on every topic under the sun is hard. Congress describes what they want to happen, get their brownie points either from constituents or from rich donors, and move on. Regulators are then left with the actual work of creating the rules and implementing the systems that carry out that will. The amount and degree of interpretation they are allowed to do is obviously up for debate (and has been litigated thoroughly and repeatedly) but its really silly to say "just do what congress says" as if congress doesn't constantly defer its responsibility for creating regulations to the executive.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Congress doesn't work that many days a year. Around 100 I think, lots of half days. They don't get to say anything is too hard until they work as much as a fast food cashier.
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      > They don't get to say anything is too hard until they work as much as a fast food cashier. It actually turns out that they do get to say this
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        I was just teaching my 4 year old what euphemisms are last night. She had the same confusion.
oh_sigh 3y ago
I think the case is actually about forcing the fed to lower the rates because merchants think they are unfairly high, not whether they have the right to set the rates, which came from the Dodd-Frank Act.
infogulch 3y ago
There's definitely some willing cooperation when Congress pawns off much of it's power to the administrative state, and dodging accountability is not the least among the reasons why (see the lack of single subject bills as another example). But agencies also just walk all over the boundary of the authority granted by Congress too, see West Virgina vs EPA: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> a supreme court case about if the fed has the power to do this without a law The Durbin Amendment specifically instructed the Fed to "limit fees charged to retailers for debit card processing" [1]. SCOTUS declined to review in 2015 [2]. I don't see anything on the docket challenging this precedent [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-debitcards-idUSKBN0KT1LA20150120 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-debitcards-idUS... [3] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/

There is also a supreme court case about if the fed has the power to do this without a law.

dataflow 3y ago

The power to propose it? Or the power to force it?

Racing0461 3y ago
The power of an executive branch agency to propose new rules. (ie new rule making without an act of congress).
- dataflow 3y ago
  Proposing new rules isn't making new rules though? I would be surprised if anyone isn't allowed to propose new rules.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Proposing a rule in this context is a step in the process of enacting it, not offering up a suggestion to Congress.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      Okay but my question is still the same - is that step itself possibly illegal? I would think only the final step is what could be illegal.
  - Racing0461 3y ago
    The term "proposed" is used here where an executive branch agency gives notice to the federal registrar, waits the time needed for public comment, pretents to "ack" the public comments and passes said rule to then enforce. ie a law that pretty much bypasses congress. the supreme court seems interested in looking at how much power can congress give to the executive branch. see: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...

hiatus 3y ago

Here's more info on the case for others interested. https://thehill.com/business/4231072-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-debit-card-swipe-fees-case/ https://thehill.com/business/4231072-supreme-court-agrees-to...

tomschlick 3y ago

Government agencies should only be able to do what congress defines in law. A great example is ATF abusing the power to redefine what a pistol/rifle/machine gun are multiple times in the past decade. This leads to people who were previously compliant with the law, with prior written approval from the ATF, now are not compliant with their new definition and could face prosecution. All without any new law being passed, all being done by political appointees and bureaucrats.

enragedcacti 3y ago
Government agencies exist because congress is lazy and writing good regulation on every topic under the sun is hard. Congress describes what they want to happen, get their brownie points either from constituents or from rich donors, and move on. Regulators are then left with the actual work of creating the rules and implementing the systems that carry out that will. The amount and degree of interpretation they are allowed to do is obviously up for debate (and has been litigated thoroughly and repeatedly) but its really silly to say "just do what congress says" as if congress doesn't constantly defer its responsibility for creating regulations to the executive.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Congress doesn't work that many days a year. Around 100 I think, lots of half days. They don't get to say anything is too hard until they work as much as a fast food cashier.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    > They don't get to say anything is too hard until they work as much as a fast food cashier. It actually turns out that they do get to say this
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      I was just teaching my 4 year old what euphemisms are last night. She had the same confusion.

oh_sigh 3y ago

I think the case is actually about forcing the fed to lower the rates because merchants think they are unfairly high, not whether they have the right to set the rates, which came from the Dodd-Frank Act.

infogulch 3y ago

There's definitely some willing cooperation when Congress pawns off much of it's power to the administrative state, and dodging accountability is not the least among the reasons why (see the lack of single subject bills as another example). But agencies also just walk all over the boundary of the authority granted by Congress too, see West Virgina vs EPA: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> a supreme court case about if the fed has the power to do this without a law The Durbin Amendment specifically instructed the Fed to "limit fees charged to retailers for debit card processing" [1]. SCOTUS declined to review in 2015 [2]. I don't see anything on the docket challenging this precedent [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-debitcards-idUSKBN0KT1LA20150120 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-debitcards-idUS... [3] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2023/