3 ms·

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 a

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 2y 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.
- redserk 2y ago
  > I think you're misinterpreting what's being said here in order to over-react. If you can point out how I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to discuss. From what it appears though, we have a disagreement on what we wish to delegate to different branches of government. > But they should be acknowledged as a necessary evil, and their use minimized when possible I disagree that executive agency rulemaking is a "necessary evil". Congress can simultaneously be derelict in their duties as a legislative body while having a executive regulatory apparatus that creates rules under their purview. > Whereas you seem to be defending taking those practices to the extreme simply because of historical precedent. If not for historical precedent and recognizing the practices we've been utilizing for 4-5 generations of people, what should we prioritize?

wtallis 2y 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.

redserk 2y ago
> I think you're misinterpreting what's being said here in order to over-react. If you can point out how I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to discuss. From what it appears though, we have a disagreement on what we wish to delegate to different branches of government. > But they should be acknowledged as a necessary evil, and their use minimized when possible I disagree that executive agency rulemaking is a "necessary evil". Congress can simultaneously be derelict in their duties as a legislative body while having a executive regulatory apparatus that creates rules under their purview. > Whereas you seem to be defending taking those practices to the extreme simply because of historical precedent. If not for historical precedent and recognizing the practices we've been utilizing for 4-5 generations of people, what should we prioritize?