34 ms·

FCC rules... The other day it was FTC and banning non competes, there's also talk right now on the home page regarding KYC and an executive order. I would lov

• redserk 3y ago
  It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.
  • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
    Yet the Chevron decision empowers agencies to make rules independent of Congress in cases where the rules don't already exist or are unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives would prefer this approach be relegated to history. Of course, the areas of particular interest that he cites as examples (securities e.g, finance, communications, and environmental laws) just happen to be those where the two parties could not possibly be further apart in their approaches. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
    • fallingknife 3y ago
      It seems to me that the Chevron doctrine has essentially created a fourth branch of government with minimal democratic oversight. It feels like an end run around the constitution. In many cases the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers all at the same time.
      • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
        Congress, in its current state is a sclerotic body barely capable of doing routine committee work that doesn't even rise to the level of passing laws. They had their chance...and failed spectacularly.
    • moduspol 3y ago
      Also gun laws. Any firearm enthusiast can tell you how inconsistent and incoherent various ATF rulings and determinations have been.
      • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
        You lost me at "firearm enthusiast." Try again when US gun laws look more like Japan's -- including an assault weapons ban. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/asia/japan-gun-laws-abe-shooting-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/asia/japan-gun-laws-abe-shoot...
        • moduspol 3y ago
          I don't see the relevance to the topic being discussed. The fact remains that the ATF enjoys the ability to unilaterally revise firearm policy well beyond what many find reasonable without a change in law made by Congress.
          • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
            This scenario is precisely why the outcome of Chevron is useful -- and, I'd argue, vital in addressing areas where legislation is needed, even if we still disagree about what shape it might take. Congress' process takes too long to adapt to conditions on the ground. The ATF has a focused mandate to study and set policy in this area without waiting for Congress to consider the issue. It might not be perfect and is still subject to political influencing as the makeup of the committee changes based on appointments, but at least something gets done. Regarding the FCC, there is some prioritization based on the type of traffic served, but it's fairly commonsense in its approach and the committee recognized that a complete lack of regulation wasn't in the public's best interest. The idea that everything is left to Congress -- or ignored, as the case may be -- creates a situation where good ideas don't develop into meaningful legislation or the bad ones get implemented over the will of the majority. Again, not only does this not happen in parliamentary systems, it's not possible because the people debating the issue are all on the same side. They all agree on the desired outcome, it's rather a question of how far they want to go.
  • wtallis 3y ago
    The problem with merely having regulations rather than laws is not a concern that they may not have proper legal authority, but that they are less durable and more easily overturned than laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
    • redserk 3y ago
      I agree, and I'd rather Congress weigh in now that we've had this specific issue flip-flop twice. I do not like the implication that agency rulemaking is anti-democratic though. We have utilized this structure for well over 120 years, or practically half of the country's history.
      • wtallis 3y ago
        You may not like it being pointed out, but having rules made by appointed regulators rather than elected legislators is obviously anti-democratic. Yes, delegating powers like this is a practical necessity, but having made that reasonable tradeoff does not erase the reality that it's a less than perfectly democratic process. So is the structure of Congress itself.
        • redserk 3y ago
          First, the US is not a pure democracy. We elect representatives on our behalf to handle voting on matters. So dismissing something as "anti-democratic" is not applicable here. Our elected officials set up a system where a series of agencies under the Executive Branch may create rules, but the elected officials have oversight authority. If you disagree, you may petition your state government for a constitutional amendment that prohibits this practice and advocate for additional states to join in.
          • wtallis 3y ago
            > So dismissing something as "anti-democratic" is not applicable here. [...] > If you disagree, you may petition your state government for a constitutional amendment I think you're misinterpreting what's being said here in order to over-react. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that executive orders and delegating powers to appointed regulators should be expunged from our system of government. But they should be acknowledged as a necessary evil, and their use minimized when possible, and not allowed to completely replace the legislative process. Whereas you seem to be defending taking those practices to the extreme simply because of historical precedent.
  • willmadden 3y ago
    Not if the agencies have leverage over Congress.
  • backtoyoujim 3y ago
    Agencies are not beholden to Congress; they are beholden to the executive branch that creates them. That is why Nixon created the EPA so that there would not be a Department of the Environment that was out of the hands of executive power.
    • pseudalopex 3y ago
      Congress created the FCC. Congress passed many laws governing agencies. Departments are not out of the hands of executive power.
    • rascul 3y ago
      > Nixon created the EPA Only because Congress allowed it. https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa
    • rsanek 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
    • adrr 3y ago
      Congress creates and funds agencies. Agencies write the regulations. This is all specified in the law that was passed. FCC commission makeup is defined by law and their authority is defined by law.
    • sabarn01 3y ago
      Congress has the legislative power all agencies derive their power from some act of congress.
• jonathankoren 3y ago
  In case you are unaware, but congress has been DEEPLY dysfunctional for the past 30 years, and has been getting worse every session. Even this week it was shocking news that a bipartisan bill managed to even come to a vote. This is what happens when the party that doesn't have the White House chooses obstruction and enforces the the Hastert Rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_rule
  • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
    Yet in functioning legislative bodies (think: parliamentary systems), employing something like Hastert doesn't require any enforcement at all. They don't typically require supermajorities to pass laws, and those in the minority don't have the means to substantively object to bills they disagree with. A man can dream.
    • jonathankoren 3y ago
      You may not realize it, but this is exactly how it works in the House of Representatives today, and is the exact cause of dysfunction.
      • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
        I should have been more precise - the Senate's rules are garbage and should be hurled into the Sun. More generally, my comments come from watching PMQ's in the House of Commons and seeing that the party out of power really doesn't have many tools to slow down the opposite sides agenda. If such a system was implemented in the US, it would force politicians to more carefully consider their positions -- no confidence votes and a motion to vacate serve the man functional purpose as a stick to get people in line, which might not otherwise be possible if they consistently took unpopular positions.
        • jonathankoren 3y ago
          You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what is going on. There are a majority number of votes to support popular legislation. These bills are simply not brought to a vote BY THE MAJORITY PARTY due to internal majority party politics. Nothing in your facile proposal would remedy this. What would fix the problem would be change to the rules so that simple majority could bring legislation to a vote. This does not exist in any functional way. And we haven’t even touched on the fact that the majority of seats are often controlled by a minority of voters due to gerrymandering and the constitutional structure of the senate.
• babypuncher 3y ago
  Our legislative branch abdicated its power when they stopped bothering to pass laws that people actually want. If the FTC and FCC weren't doing either of these things, they simply wouldn't happen. As soon as a Net Neutrality or non-compete clause ban bill makes it to the senate floor, Republicans will just filibuster it, even though public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of both these measures.
  • fallingknife 3y ago
    While I support both of those things, I don't see any problem requiring the legislature to actually legislate to make them happen. If the public felt strongly about these issues they would just remove their representatives next election. Just because I happen to agree with the actions of the agency in this case is not enough to justify handing legislative power over to bureaucratic agencies that do not have any of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our system.
    • throwup238 3y ago
      > that do not have any of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our system. But they do have the same checks and balances. All of these rules are open to judicial review and there is a whole process in place due to the Administrative Procedure Act. In fact there are more rules for these agencies like having public commenting periods after which they're required by law to consider that input when making their rules.
    • babypuncher 3y ago
      One of the things the legislative branch can do is delegate their powers to organizations better equipped to understand complex issues. These organizations, which function as part of the executive branch, are still subject to checks and balances from both the legislative and judicial branches. The legislative branch has the power to change the laws that govern what these agencies can or cannot do, and the judicial branch has the power to determine if their actions go against either the laws passed by the legislature or the constitution. Banning regulatory agencies from doing their job would hamstring our government's ability to regulate anything, which is probably why monied interests like to argue that their very existence is unconstitutional.
• unreal37 3y ago
  The congress doesn't seem to be able to pass anything itself without it being tied to an increase in the military budget...
• jandrese 3y ago
  Congress does not want to have to learn the minutia of every aspect of things that are regulated. Delegating responsibility to the relevant agencies is exactly how Congress operates.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• darkwizard42 3y ago
  This is the equivalent of a CEO/C-suite delegating decision making to various teams and leaders below them. They still add laws and appoint the leaders of those organizations, but can't be involved in every decision. Can't expect every single item in the government to get direct democracy, the world would grind to a halt due to the sheer number of decisions needed to be made.