3 ms·

Agencies that get to set policy and get to enforce policy have always bothered me. It's ripe for abuse via selective enforcement, controversy as we've seen, and

Agencies that get to set policy and get to enforce policy have always bothered me. It's ripe for abuse via selective enforcement, controversy as we've seen, and promotes the expansion of federal agency budgets without a real value to the taxpayer. It'd be better to have the "enforcement arm" of like EPA, FCC, etc be part of the justice department, whereas the "policy arm" of said organizations be controlled separately. Separation of power.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> be part of the justice department Still no separation of power, they're all the executive branch.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  They were suggesting moving the other half, not the half you quoted that about.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  It's true that they're both part of the executive branch. However, one would be the recipient of the "delegation" of legislative power, whereas the enforcement component would not. Additionally, I think it's fair to assume that GP intended that the DOJ entity would bring enforcement actions in Article III courts. I'm not sure it's the right answer, but the proposal is interesting and deserves more than being dismissed out of hand.
bdw5204 3y ago
The best solution would be to prohibit the executive branch from making up new laws and return that power to the legislative branch where it belongs.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  If there's a mechanism for setting up the same kind of delegation inside that branch, sure! If you want congress to directly decide every detail and change themselves, that doesn't sound like it will lead to effective government at all.
  - Sakos 3y ago
    I always feel like when people say they want it returned to the legislative, that's the point. They don't want functional or effective government because they're secretly libertarians or conservatives.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      If the voters want a functional or effective government, they can elect a Congress that is capable of passing legislation. Allowing the executive branch or the judicial branch to perform the role of the legislative branch enables voters to get away with electing dysfunctional Congresses that struggle to do basic tasks like elect a Speaker or pass a budget. Returning the legislative powers to Congress would be as simple as allowing the executive branch agencies to continue proposing laws but Congress would have to affirmatively pass them into law instead of merely not pass a resolution blocking them.
    - bradley13 3y ago
      Um... You think conservatives don't want an effective government? That's bizarre. They most certainly do. Their definition differs from yours, but is just as valid. Anyway: the fundamental issue here us the huge mass of enforceable regulations that (a) have never been seen by a legislator, and (b) will be enforced by the same agency that created them. How can you expect citizens to follow regulations, when these are so extensive that no one can possibly ever read them all? That is the real issue underlying these regulatory enforcement actions.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        There is a good contingent of people where the long-term ideal is for the chunks of government they don't like to fail so they can be removed or cut way down. So while they want an effective government, that doesn't mean they want particular sections of government to be effective.
- exabrial 3y ago
  ^ Precisely.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> be part of the justice department Still no separation of power, they're all the executive branch.

Dylan16807 3y ago
They were suggesting moving the other half, not the half you quoted that about.
torstenvl 3y ago
It's true that they're both part of the executive branch. However, one would be the recipient of the "delegation" of legislative power, whereas the enforcement component would not. Additionally, I think it's fair to assume that GP intended that the DOJ entity would bring enforcement actions in Article III courts. I'm not sure it's the right answer, but the proposal is interesting and deserves more than being dismissed out of hand.

bdw5204 3y ago

The best solution would be to prohibit the executive branch from making up new laws and return that power to the legislative branch where it belongs.

Dylan16807 3y ago
If there's a mechanism for setting up the same kind of delegation inside that branch, sure! If you want congress to directly decide every detail and change themselves, that doesn't sound like it will lead to effective government at all.
- Sakos 3y ago
  I always feel like when people say they want it returned to the legislative, that's the point. They don't want functional or effective government because they're secretly libertarians or conservatives.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    If the voters want a functional or effective government, they can elect a Congress that is capable of passing legislation. Allowing the executive branch or the judicial branch to perform the role of the legislative branch enables voters to get away with electing dysfunctional Congresses that struggle to do basic tasks like elect a Speaker or pass a budget. Returning the legislative powers to Congress would be as simple as allowing the executive branch agencies to continue proposing laws but Congress would have to affirmatively pass them into law instead of merely not pass a resolution blocking them.
  - bradley13 3y ago
    Um... You think conservatives don't want an effective government? That's bizarre. They most certainly do. Their definition differs from yours, but is just as valid. Anyway: the fundamental issue here us the huge mass of enforceable regulations that (a) have never been seen by a legislator, and (b) will be enforced by the same agency that created them. How can you expect citizens to follow regulations, when these are so extensive that no one can possibly ever read them all? That is the real issue underlying these regulatory enforcement actions.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      There is a good contingent of people where the long-term ideal is for the chunks of government they don't like to fail so they can be removed or cut way down. So while they want an effective government, that doesn't mean they want particular sections of government to be effective.
exabrial 3y ago
^ Precisely.