4 ms·

It's not very well-argued, in that if regulation was pervasive since the founding as the author states, then what would unwinding something from the New Deal er

It's not very well-argued, in that if regulation was pervasive since the founding as the author states, then what would unwinding something from the New Deal era accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

lumost 3y ago
New deal was about 90 years ago. It doesn’t seem believable that the ideal form of the US government was a situation from 90 years ago. Hopefully this is a case where the ruling would be defacto recognition of the modern agency as a delegate of congress.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  It would seem most likely that some things were ideal 90 years ago and some things are ideal today. In other words, it's not that government or society gets better over time in all vectors. Certainly it regresses on many of them over time, and some things suffer from atrophy and entropy, even things that may have been a good idea at the time may no longer serve their intended purpose, or may hold society back on some vectors due to over investment in programs designed decades ago.
defrost 3y ago
It would accomplish a Supreme Court precedent that would allow unwinding all the delegation of regulation and enforcement since the founding based on a partial reading of Madison and Hamilton (just the bits that extreme libertarians like without any of the "but also" stuff). If that were to happen then all oversight of any company deals would fall to the specific whims of whomever the current US Congress might be .. time permitting, of course. At the current scale of the US that's a recipe for any goes as there's too much going on for a small group tasked with running the entire nation to stay on top of (hence the introduction of delegation initially).
- rayiner 3y ago
  You think the framers went to all that trouble to create this complex process for making laws between two houses of the legislature and the signature of the president, but thought it would be totally cool for unelected bureaucrats in some executive branch agency to do the same thing? Arguments about the “current scale of the US” obviously don’t tell you what the Constitution means. And even on its own terms that argument makes no sense. The federal government isn’t in charge of “running the entire nation.” It’s pretty remarkable to say that we should ignore the tripartite system of government because that’s makes it easier to disregard federalism.
  - defrost 3y ago
    s/tasked with running/tasked with coordinating states and federal matters/ I think nothing about the US framers - not my country. I simply answered the question posed without delving into the merits of any specific position. On the matter of stock exchanges and securities Congress did lawfully choose to regulate and bind public companies to declare honest and true infomation to the public yada yada .. that's within the scope of Congress. The delegation is to have a seperate ideally independant group oversee that every one of hundreds of thousands of listed companies abide by regulation - just as Congress doesn't ride shotgun on every stagecoach. It's fair to bring back to Congress any disagreements with how regulation is being managed, just as it's fair to bring back to a judge a complaint that an appointed sheriff is a lying conniving son of a bitch using a badge as an ATM (for example).
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Well, it's really pretty simple. The way the US government is supposed to work, courts adjudicate, legislature makes the rules and the executive enforces them. All this hand wringing is about returning to that. The legislature cannot create an executive department that is able to create what amount to laws, execute them and adjudicate them. You can have an SEC; it can only enforce laws passed by Congress and if you dispute it goes to a federal court. That's how it's supposed to work.
      - 3y ago
klooney 3y ago
The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state. A ton of what made it work was the Executive and Legislative branches bullying the (normally a bulwark of conservatism) Judicial into acquiescing. Since the end of the Warren court, the Judicial branch has been chipping away at the ground they lost, and I guess this would continue that process. Before people come yell at me, I want to be very clear about the is/ought distinction here- we ought to have a centralized government, it isn't particularly compatible with the constitution as currently constructed.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state Centralization is not necessary for governments to provide the services of a modern state. Sweden manages to provide all the functionality of a modern state, and has about the same population as North Carolina. Even then, the majority of Swedish government spending actually happens at the county and municipal level. What the Constitution resists is turning the federal government into the level of government that’s responsible for providing all these services.

lumost 3y ago

New deal was about 90 years ago. It doesn’t seem believable that the ideal form of the US government was a situation from 90 years ago. Hopefully this is a case where the ruling would be defacto recognition of the modern agency as a delegate of congress.

chrisco255 3y ago
It would seem most likely that some things were ideal 90 years ago and some things are ideal today. In other words, it's not that government or society gets better over time in all vectors. Certainly it regresses on many of them over time, and some things suffer from atrophy and entropy, even things that may have been a good idea at the time may no longer serve their intended purpose, or may hold society back on some vectors due to over investment in programs designed decades ago.

defrost 3y ago

It would accomplish a Supreme Court precedent that would allow unwinding all the delegation of regulation and enforcement since the founding based on a partial reading of Madison and Hamilton (just the bits that extreme libertarians like without any of the "but also" stuff). If that were to happen then all oversight of any company deals would fall to the specific whims of whomever the current US Congress might be .. time permitting, of course. At the current scale of the US that's a recipe for any goes as there's too much going on for a small group tasked with running the entire nation to stay on top of (hence the introduction of delegation initially).

rayiner 3y ago
You think the framers went to all that trouble to create this complex process for making laws between two houses of the legislature and the signature of the president, but thought it would be totally cool for unelected bureaucrats in some executive branch agency to do the same thing? Arguments about the “current scale of the US” obviously don’t tell you what the Constitution means. And even on its own terms that argument makes no sense. The federal government isn’t in charge of “running the entire nation.” It’s pretty remarkable to say that we should ignore the tripartite system of government because that’s makes it easier to disregard federalism.
- defrost 3y ago
  s/tasked with running/tasked with coordinating states and federal matters/ I think nothing about the US framers - not my country. I simply answered the question posed without delving into the merits of any specific position. On the matter of stock exchanges and securities Congress did lawfully choose to regulate and bind public companies to declare honest and true infomation to the public yada yada .. that's within the scope of Congress. The delegation is to have a seperate ideally independant group oversee that every one of hundreds of thousands of listed companies abide by regulation - just as Congress doesn't ride shotgun on every stagecoach. It's fair to bring back to Congress any disagreements with how regulation is being managed, just as it's fair to bring back to a judge a complaint that an appointed sheriff is a lying conniving son of a bitch using a badge as an ATM (for example).
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Well, it's really pretty simple. The way the US government is supposed to work, courts adjudicate, legislature makes the rules and the executive enforces them. All this hand wringing is about returning to that. The legislature cannot create an executive department that is able to create what amount to laws, execute them and adjudicate them. You can have an SEC; it can only enforce laws passed by Congress and if you dispute it goes to a federal court. That's how it's supposed to work.
    - 3y ago

klooney 3y ago

The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state. A ton of what made it work was the Executive and Legislative branches bullying the (normally a bulwark of conservatism) Judicial into acquiescing. Since the end of the Warren court, the Judicial branch has been chipping away at the ground they lost, and I guess this would continue that process. Before people come yell at me, I want to be very clear about the is/ought distinction here- we ought to have a centralized government, it isn't particularly compatible with the constitution as currently constructed.

rayiner 3y ago
> The New Deal was a pretty big deal- it did a lot to transition the US to a centralized enough state to accomplish what we generally regard as the duties of a modern state Centralization is not necessary for governments to provide the services of a modern state. Sweden manages to provide all the functionality of a modern state, and has about the same population as North Carolina. Even then, the majority of Swedish government spending actually happens at the county and municipal level. What the Constitution resists is turning the federal government into the level of government that’s responsible for providing all these services.