3 ms·

Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules. Everything you’re describing as some huge travesty sounds like a sensib

Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules. Everything you’re describing as some huge travesty sounds like a sensible and meaningful optimization of a system that already tends to be extremely overburdened. I don’t want every single corporate rule breaking attempt to immediately compete with murders for courtroom time. Obviously everyone should have the right to use the justice system if they need to, and they do have that right.

rayiner 3y ago
> Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules Those “rules” are equivalent to laws. The whole point of a written Constitution is to enforce fundamental structural constraints on the government, such as Congress rather than the executive being the one that makes laws.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument. I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system. All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.

rayiner 3y ago

> Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules Those “rules” are equivalent to laws. The whole point of a written Constitution is to enforce fundamental structural constraints on the government, such as Congress rather than the executive being the one that makes laws.

ethanbond 3y ago
And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument. I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system. All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.