3 ms·

> They're arbitrary not because of the ruling (although putting judicial functions in the executive is scarcely better than putting legislative functions there)

by flir 3y ago

> They're arbitrary not because of the ruling (although putting judicial functions in the executive is scarcely better than putting legislative functions there), they're arbitrary because the rule you're being fined for violating was created by the administrative agency fining you rather than Congress. Rule-making cannot be devolved at the legislature's discretion? So the legislature can't write a law that says "within bounds X, org Y has the power to manage the rules around thing Z"? (It would work in the UK, where these powers are most often delegated to the executive via Henry VIII clauses, so this is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one).

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This is basically the question at issue. Administrative agencies have been acting as though they can for a while now but there isn't really anything in the constitution that says that they can, and some pretty good logic for why they shouldn't. What's the point of electing legislators and setting up balance of powers if you're just going to put the lawmaking authority in the executive? Suppose during a lame duck session that the government passed a law delegating rulemaking authority to the Senate, so they could pass new laws without them being voted on by the House or signed by the President, right before the House and Presidency switched parties. Does it make sense for that to be allowed? If not, how is it different when it's the executive the authority is being delegated to, which isn't a part of the legislature at all?
- flir 3y ago
  First item on the incoming legislature's agenda would be to knock that on the head and to walk back any harm that was done. In theory the electorate should also punish a stunt like that, but you know what modern elections are like. Where I am, it's simple: Parliament (the legislature) is sovereign, and everyone else's power flows from theirs. That puts a hell of a lot power in Parliament's hands (eg general elections were suspended between 1935 and 1945). This is a blessing (agility) and a curse (more vulnerable to bad actors). You've got some laws that are harder to change than others, which puts some brakes on bad actors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > First item on the incoming legislature's agenda would be to knock that on the head and to walk back any harm that was done. They can't. They control the House, not the Senate, and they'd need both in order to change it back. Or, under the new rule, at least the Senate by itself, which is the part they haven't got. > This is a blessing (agility) and a curse (more vulnerable to bad actors). Agility in central government is overrated. If it does nothing you can still take a crack at the problem at the state level or in the private sector, whereas if it does something bad, you're screwed.

by flir 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

This is basically the question at issue. Administrative agencies have been acting as though they can for a while now but there isn't really anything in the constitution that says that they can, and some pretty good logic for why they shouldn't. What's the point of electing legislators and setting up balance of powers if you're just going to put the lawmaking authority in the executive? Suppose during a lame duck session that the government passed a law delegating rulemaking authority to the Senate, so they could pass new laws without them being voted on by the House or signed by the President, right before the House and Presidency switched parties. Does it make sense for that to be allowed? If not, how is it different when it's the executive the authority is being delegated to, which isn't a part of the legislature at all?

flir 3y ago
First item on the incoming legislature's agenda would be to knock that on the head and to walk back any harm that was done. In theory the electorate should also punish a stunt like that, but you know what modern elections are like. Where I am, it's simple: Parliament (the legislature) is sovereign, and everyone else's power flows from theirs. That puts a hell of a lot power in Parliament's hands (eg general elections were suspended between 1935 and 1945). This is a blessing (agility) and a curse (more vulnerable to bad actors). You've got some laws that are harder to change than others, which puts some brakes on bad actors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > First item on the incoming legislature's agenda would be to knock that on the head and to walk back any harm that was done. They can't. They control the House, not the Senate, and they'd need both in order to change it back. Or, under the new rule, at least the Senate by itself, which is the part they haven't got. > This is a blessing (agility) and a curse (more vulnerable to bad actors). Agility in central government is overrated. If it does nothing you can still take a crack at the problem at the state level or in the private sector, whereas if it does something bad, you're screwed.