3 ms·

> The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations The US Constitution + amendments delineates the powers of the branches. Is the situation you

> The executive branch can unilaterally revoke these regulations The US Constitution + amendments delineates the powers of the branches. Is the situation you describe possibly a window in time when executive branch constitutional overreach has not been yet challenged? [ edit : great explanations below -> sincere thanks ]

mattmaroon 3y ago
It’s not overreach, it’s delegation by Congress to the executive parent is discussing. Congress often gives the executive the right to regulate things instead of regulating it themselves, and it’s a controversial topic.
aidenn0 3y ago
Congress created the FTC, congress could eliminate or curtail the FTC's power. Some have argued that it's unconstitutional for congress to give away its power (even conditionally) in this way, but AFAIK that's a rather fringe legal theory. Certainly the FTC has existed for over 100 years at this point, so there's been plenty of time to challenge it.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  The same fringe legal theory that is likely to win in the Chevron Deference case[0] before the Supreme court, which will gut agencies (including the FTCs) ability to regulate things in this manner? [0]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Not even remotely the same legal theory; the theory there is that the courts should be able to review regulations the agencies make for e.g. if there were less burdensome ways to accomplish the same goal even when the regulations themselves are "reasonable"
- cryptonector 3y ago
  The major questions doctrine announced in W. Virginia vs. EPA, and the upcoming, likely reversal of Chevron together will greatly limit the Congress' ability delegate power broadly to the Executive. You might call that a "fringe legal theory", but it seems poised to be the legal theory of the land.
cryptonector 3y ago
Live by regulation, die by regulation. GP's point is that since this rule is made by this Administration, the next Administration could undo it. GP is right. As long as one Administration has the power delegated to it by Congress, and so does the next one, then the next one can change and even reverse the previous one(s)' regulations. The court recently found (in W. Virginia vs. EPA) that Congress cannot delegate power in "major questions". This rule might not be a "major question", but given the vagueness of the statutory foundation of the FTC, it's possible that all of the FTC's work is on thin ice. The Court would likely not rule the whole FTC and its past regulations unconstitutional, but it might start looking askance at regulations that seem remotely like major questions. Is this rule a "major question"? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think "no".

mattmaroon 3y ago

It’s not overreach, it’s delegation by Congress to the executive parent is discussing. Congress often gives the executive the right to regulate things instead of regulating it themselves, and it’s a controversial topic.

aidenn0 3y ago

Congress created the FTC, congress could eliminate or curtail the FTC's power. Some have argued that it's unconstitutional for congress to give away its power (even conditionally) in this way, but AFAIK that's a rather fringe legal theory. Certainly the FTC has existed for over 100 years at this point, so there's been plenty of time to challenge it.

no_wizard 3y ago
The same fringe legal theory that is likely to win in the Chevron Deference case[0] before the Supreme court, which will gut agencies (including the FTCs) ability to regulate things in this manner? [0]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Not even remotely the same legal theory; the theory there is that the courts should be able to review regulations the agencies make for e.g. if there were less burdensome ways to accomplish the same goal even when the regulations themselves are "reasonable"
cryptonector 3y ago
The major questions doctrine announced in W. Virginia vs. EPA, and the upcoming, likely reversal of Chevron together will greatly limit the Congress' ability delegate power broadly to the Executive. You might call that a "fringe legal theory", but it seems poised to be the legal theory of the land.

cryptonector 3y ago

Live by regulation, die by regulation. GP's point is that since this rule is made by this Administration, the next Administration could undo it. GP is right. As long as one Administration has the power delegated to it by Congress, and so does the next one, then the next one can change and even reverse the previous one(s)' regulations. The court recently found (in W. Virginia vs. EPA) that Congress cannot delegate power in "major questions". This rule might not be a "major question", but given the vagueness of the statutory foundation of the FTC, it's possible that all of the FTC's work is on thin ice. The Court would likely not rule the whole FTC and its past regulations unconstitutional, but it might start looking askance at regulations that seem remotely like major questions. Is this rule a "major question"? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think "no".