3 ms·

THEY ARE NOT immune from democratic control. That's a common falsehood promoted by the extreme right. Congress has the power to reign them in any time they choo

THEY ARE NOT immune from democratic control. That's a common falsehood promoted by the extreme right. Congress has the power to reign them in any time they choose. Congress simply prefers to whimp out and lie to their constituents that "there's nothing they can do" and transfer blame to someone else.

sickofparadox 3y ago
So they're only immune from democratic control in reality, but technically they could be reigned in if the people that are happy to let them run free would decide to 180 their positions? Sounds like effective democratic control to me.
coolhand2120 3y ago
Woah there. Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. So it is indeed unconstitutional. A great many of the alphabet soup agencies are in this boat. Whole lot of unconstitutional behavior going around and nobody really bats an eye.
- HenryPrickett 3y ago
  On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. The idea that statutes cannot allow for administrative rulemaking is some psycho libertarian bullshit because it is literally impossible to run an administrative state where the nuts and bolts (rather than just the goals, outcomes, and boundaries) of the administration of law must be handled legislatively. Read this and do better https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html.
  - avs733 3y ago
    I suspect several people in this thread are conflating the non-delegation doctrine with the major questions doctrine, which is a confusing narrative that has been pushed to make the major questions doctrine seem less whackado.
    - 303uru 3y ago
      Reminder that the major questions doctrine is complete BS invented out of thin air.
      - avs733 3y ago
        ...I assumed that was assumed :)
  - coolhand2120 3y ago
    The courts disagree. https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-big-in-court/ https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-... Agencies cannot make law. SCOTUS has repeatedly said congress cannot delegate legislative authorities to other agencies. That they do it anyway does not make it constitutional.
    - HenryPrickett 3y ago
      Agencies don't make law. They make rules which implement and execute the statutes which provide for their authority. This has been upheld as valid in many, many cases.
      - coolhand2120 3y ago
        > Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. > On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. .... provides link proving point ... > Agencies don't make law. So you agree with me? What do you think the legislative branch of the government does besides legislate? Many times these agencies have overstepped their bounds, they are only rarely challenged on their unconstitutional behavior - lawsuits being hard and expensive. Some people even condone this unconstitutional behavior because it furthers their agenda. Here's a better link: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/ALDE_00001315/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/A... The joke processes that NRLB has setup are the source of its own demise. If they simply follow the law and didn't make up quasi-judicial proceedings they might be fine. Like many agencies before them, the NRLB will be taken to court, the court will find that _yet another agency_ has been assuming the authority delegated to congress by the Constitution, and they will be reversed. Maybe you can explain why that won't happen? It sounds like SpaceX has a strong case here.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        > Agencies don't make law. They make rules Let’s do some role playing… “It’s not a law, it’s a rule” “Who made the rule?” “The government…” “What happens if I break the rule?” “You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…” “Who enforces that?” “The government…” Now, let’s switch a couple of words around and see if it changes the meaning at all… “It’s not a rule, it’s a law” “Who made the law?” “The government…” “What happens if I break the law?” “You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…” “Who enforces that?” “The government…” Seems pretty interchangeable to me.
slavboj 3y ago
Executive departments not answerable to the President are unconstitutional, full stop. We do not allow Congress to delegate its authority and/or strip authority from the President and move it into a fourth branch of government.
- tedivm 3y ago
  The Supreme Court, which is who decides what is unconstitutional, has spent hundreds of years disagreeing with you. Full Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... I always find it weird when people make statements like yours, full of confidence that what they are saying is the way everything is and should be, when they are literally completely and utterly wrong. What you have is an opinion of how you think the government should be run, based on your interpretation of the constitution. The reality is that the Supreme Court thinks your interpretation is wrong, and since they're the deciding factor that means your interpretation is wrong.
  - slavboj 3y ago
    They can be "independent", provided the President is able to fire them. That is the mechanism for accountability. NLRB directors only being fireable for cause, rather than because the people's elected representative chooses to can them as a matter of state policy, is unconstitutional. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules-that-the-structure-of-key-independent-agency-is-unconstituti https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules...
    - averysmallbird 3y ago
      [flagged]
- averysmallbird 3y ago
  You may have that political position, but you're wrong on the merits. The non-delegation doctrine exists, but independent agencies survive because its administrators are Presidentially appointed and Congressionally confirmed, and other factors. Other commenters have rightfully also pointed out that you probably have more chance to engage in the democratic process with an independent agency, which also tend to have greater representation from the political party not in control of the Presidency. It would be correct to say that there are new attacks on the administrative courts systems and extent of deference to administrative rulemaking. But you're wrong about independent agencies.

sickofparadox 3y ago

So they're only immune from democratic control in reality, but technically they could be reigned in if the people that are happy to let them run free would decide to 180 their positions? Sounds like effective democratic control to me.

coolhand2120 3y ago

Woah there. Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. So it is indeed unconstitutional. A great many of the alphabet soup agencies are in this boat. Whole lot of unconstitutional behavior going around and nobody really bats an eye.

HenryPrickett 3y ago
On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. The idea that statutes cannot allow for administrative rulemaking is some psycho libertarian bullshit because it is literally impossible to run an administrative state where the nuts and bolts (rather than just the goals, outcomes, and boundaries) of the administration of law must be handled legislatively. Read this and do better https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html.
- avs733 3y ago
  I suspect several people in this thread are conflating the non-delegation doctrine with the major questions doctrine, which is a confusing narrative that has been pushed to make the major questions doctrine seem less whackado.
  - 303uru 3y ago
    Reminder that the major questions doctrine is complete BS invented out of thin air.
    - avs733 3y ago
      ...I assumed that was assumed :)
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  The courts disagree. https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-big-in-court/ https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-... Agencies cannot make law. SCOTUS has repeatedly said congress cannot delegate legislative authorities to other agencies. That they do it anyway does not make it constitutional.
  - HenryPrickett 3y ago
    Agencies don't make law. They make rules which implement and execute the statutes which provide for their authority. This has been upheld as valid in many, many cases.
    - coolhand2120 3y ago
      > Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. > On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. .... provides link proving point ... > Agencies don't make law. So you agree with me? What do you think the legislative branch of the government does besides legislate? Many times these agencies have overstepped their bounds, they are only rarely challenged on their unconstitutional behavior - lawsuits being hard and expensive. Some people even condone this unconstitutional behavior because it furthers their agenda. Here's a better link: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/ALDE_00001315/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-4-1/A... The joke processes that NRLB has setup are the source of its own demise. If they simply follow the law and didn't make up quasi-judicial proceedings they might be fine. Like many agencies before them, the NRLB will be taken to court, the court will find that _yet another agency_ has been assuming the authority delegated to congress by the Constitution, and they will be reversed. Maybe you can explain why that won't happen? It sounds like SpaceX has a strong case here.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      > Agencies don't make law. They make rules Let’s do some role playing… “It’s not a law, it’s a rule” “Who made the rule?” “The government…” “What happens if I break the rule?” “You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…” “Who enforces that?” “The government…” Now, let’s switch a couple of words around and see if it changes the meaning at all… “It’s not a rule, it’s a law” “Who made the law?” “The government…” “What happens if I break the law?” “You could be fined or subjected to greater penalties…” “Who enforces that?” “The government…” Seems pretty interchangeable to me.

slavboj 3y ago

Executive departments not answerable to the President are unconstitutional, full stop. We do not allow Congress to delegate its authority and/or strip authority from the President and move it into a fourth branch of government.

tedivm 3y ago
The Supreme Court, which is who decides what is unconstitutional, has spent hundreds of years disagreeing with you. Full Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... I always find it weird when people make statements like yours, full of confidence that what they are saying is the way everything is and should be, when they are literally completely and utterly wrong. What you have is an opinion of how you think the government should be run, based on your interpretation of the constitution. The reality is that the Supreme Court thinks your interpretation is wrong, and since they're the deciding factor that means your interpretation is wrong.
- slavboj 3y ago
  They can be "independent", provided the President is able to fire them. That is the mechanism for accountability. NLRB directors only being fireable for cause, rather than because the people's elected representative chooses to can them as a matter of state policy, is unconstitutional. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules-that-the-structure-of-key-independent-agency-is-unconstituti https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules...
  - averysmallbird 3y ago
    [flagged]
averysmallbird 3y ago
You may have that political position, but you're wrong on the merits. The non-delegation doctrine exists, but independent agencies survive because its administrators are Presidentially appointed and Congressionally confirmed, and other factors. Other commenters have rightfully also pointed out that you probably have more chance to engage in the democratic process with an independent agency, which also tend to have greater representation from the political party not in control of the Presidency. It would be correct to say that there are new attacks on the administrative courts systems and extent of deference to administrative rulemaking. But you're wrong about independent agencies.