4 ms·

I meant in statutory matters. You're right that the judicial branch would still be checked in other matters, e.g. appointment and confirmation. I don't deny th

I meant in statutory matters. You're right that the judicial branch would still be checked in other matters, e.g. appointment and confirmation. I don't deny that the judicial branch has the authority to review these semi-judicial schemes designed by the legislative branch. What I find concerning is the broader conclusion: that the legislative branch may effectively have no regulatory power behind its statutory power, and that all regulatory decisions or adjudications would have to flow through a judicial process instead of the competent agency or department. In effect, this would both gum up the US's regulatory machinery by making legislative acts themselves toothless. That seems pretty bad to me, and not in keeping with the enumerated powers of each branch.

nvm0n2 3y ago
[dead]
sokoloff 3y ago
Even the enforcement powers that are not held in the judiciary should be vested and exercised in the executive branch, should they not? Meaning the legislative branch should not have both legislative and enforcement powers. I think of the FAA, FDA, and the like as being part of the executive branch, not the legislative. Quick Google seems to back that up (and it matches my model of checks and balances from civics.)
- SllX 3y ago
  You are correct. The basic breakdown is this: Lawmaking: Congress Law Enforcement: The President and all agencies under him Adjudication and guarantor of due process: Federal Judiciary Regulations often get confused with law, but they’re not law so much as either 1) guidance as to how that agency interprets the laws that Congress passes within their enforcement domain and will be proceeding with how they enforce it or 2) orders issued by the President or his cabinet as to how an agency lower in the hierarchy is to proceed. Where the NLRB is being challenged (as had the FTC and SEC has been recently) is that in addition to authorizing the agencies in question, Congress vested them with some limited amount of adjudication powers related to their enforcement domain which have in turn tried to limit access to Article III judicial review by saying you have to go through their internal court processes first before you can get access to the Federal Judiciary to review the case. If you think that violates separation of powers, Amazon and SpaceX do too. Theoretically handling everything within a single agency might be more efficient, but that’s to the government’s benefit to the detriment of the rights of Amazon and SpaceX to due process and Judicial oversight of the Executive branch.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Corporations with enough money to buy regulators and legislators probably should not be entitled to any rights. They should only exist and continue to operate at the pleasure of the electorate.
    - SllX 3y ago
      Corporations are a legal proxy for the owners and management; protecting the rights of these people and pooling their resource are essentially a corporation’s raison d’être. They can’t really do that if they don’t receive the same due process protections, and they are under our legal system entitled to those.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >adjudication powers related to their enforcement domain which have in turn tried to limit access to Article III judicial review by saying you have to go through their internal court processes first before you can get access to the Federal Judiciary to review the case. And does any of these companies include an arbitration clause in any of their contracts?
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    > but that’s to the government’s benefit to the detriment of the rights of Amazon and SpaceX to due process and Judicial oversight of the Executive branch. Or to their benefit when the regulations affect their competitors, often to the detriment of the rest of us.

nvm0n2 3y ago

[dead]

sokoloff 3y ago

Even the enforcement powers that are not held in the judiciary should be vested and exercised in the executive branch, should they not? Meaning the legislative branch should not have both legislative and enforcement powers. I think of the FAA, FDA, and the like as being part of the executive branch, not the legislative. Quick Google seems to back that up (and it matches my model of checks and balances from civics.)

SllX 3y ago
You are correct. The basic breakdown is this: Lawmaking: Congress Law Enforcement: The President and all agencies under him Adjudication and guarantor of due process: Federal Judiciary Regulations often get confused with law, but they’re not law so much as either 1) guidance as to how that agency interprets the laws that Congress passes within their enforcement domain and will be proceeding with how they enforce it or 2) orders issued by the President or his cabinet as to how an agency lower in the hierarchy is to proceed. Where the NLRB is being challenged (as had the FTC and SEC has been recently) is that in addition to authorizing the agencies in question, Congress vested them with some limited amount of adjudication powers related to their enforcement domain which have in turn tried to limit access to Article III judicial review by saying you have to go through their internal court processes first before you can get access to the Federal Judiciary to review the case. If you think that violates separation of powers, Amazon and SpaceX do too. Theoretically handling everything within a single agency might be more efficient, but that’s to the government’s benefit to the detriment of the rights of Amazon and SpaceX to due process and Judicial oversight of the Executive branch.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Corporations with enough money to buy regulators and legislators probably should not be entitled to any rights. They should only exist and continue to operate at the pleasure of the electorate.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Corporations are a legal proxy for the owners and management; protecting the rights of these people and pooling their resource are essentially a corporation’s raison d’être. They can’t really do that if they don’t receive the same due process protections, and they are under our legal system entitled to those.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >adjudication powers related to their enforcement domain which have in turn tried to limit access to Article III judicial review by saying you have to go through their internal court processes first before you can get access to the Federal Judiciary to review the case. And does any of these companies include an arbitration clause in any of their contracts?
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  > but that’s to the government’s benefit to the detriment of the rights of Amazon and SpaceX to due process and Judicial oversight of the Executive branch. Or to their benefit when the regulations affect their competitors, often to the detriment of the rest of us.