5 ms·

The legislature are not experts and it is reasonable for them to rely on the experts in the agencies that they created to fine tune implementation. If this was

by neaden 2y ago

The legislature are not experts and it is reasonable for them to rely on the experts in the agencies that they created to fine tune implementation. If this was really bad then you should take it up with the legislature to change the laws. This goes into a core misunderstanding I think a lot of Americans have, that we have three co-equal branches of government. That was not the intention, the Legislature is supposed to be the most powerful, creating laws and with the authority to impeach the other two branches, who have no way of removing legislatures. Over time the other two branches have been accumulating power that should belong to the legislature, and I see this as yet another example.

myworkinisgood 2y ago
[dead]
maxwell 2y ago
Then they can consult with experts, put it in a bill, and vote on it, instead of leaving it up to later extra-legislative discretion from political appointees with questionable expertise. It sounds like you're referring to Locke's view on separation of power? He did hold legislative power supreme over the others like you say, but also noted that legislative power derives its authority from the people (consent of the governed), who have the right to make and unmake the legislature. > And when the people have said we will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men... nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws but as such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them. Representation is now extremely poor in the United States. Colonial Americans enjoyed better representation on paper (though virtual) than the average American does today. People have better representation in Commie China. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries, with over 700k constituents per rep. Compare Nordic countries, with more like 40k per rep, closer to the U.S. in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The only act of Congress I advocate for is repealing the "Permanent" Apportionment Act of 1929.
- theptip 2y ago
  That doesn’t solve the problem; how do you decide the ambiguity in the meantime? (Concretely, some court is evaluating a dispute. Does the EPA have the right to decree X, or not?)
  - maxwell 2y ago
    In the U.S., the federal government only has powers that have been explicitly allocated by the sovereign (the People). The executive, under the guise of any three letters, can't "decree" shit beyond EOs. The President has enforcement and federative powers, not legislative.
    - rustcleaner 2y ago
      >by the sovereign (the People) This is a mere magick trick that can only ultimately be enforced by private firearms. You do not hold allodial title to the things which you need to live. You can be involuntarily caged for long periods for mere possession of materials or objects. You are a subject, not a sovereign. Try protecting yourself from kidnap by an enforcer next time he catches you with a joint, you will be swiftly escalated to execution if you successfully fight off application of chains. You are not sovereign if your choices are death or obedience (even to the god/religion "The Law"). Our system kills sovereigns systematically and convinces its subjects they're sovereign (they're not) in order to lessen the odds said subjects learn from the state and get violent against its enforcers. Democracy did not help us: it helps the ruling elite by playing a magick trick on you, convincing you to give up violent power and accept the unacceptable because "We have rules and a system, and you agreed to those rules so tough nuts! You've got a chance for change next election cycle." Its original intent was noble, but seriously try BSing me that we have any effect after the comedic horror show last night...
caseysoftware 2y ago
> The legislature are not experts and it is reasonable for them to rely on the experts in the agencies that they created to fine tune implementation. That gets to the deeper problem.. If you have one group that is in charge of creating the rules, interpreting the rules, and enforcing the rules, you can't trust the process is independent and there's equal treatment. If the legislature are not experts - and they're not on many many topics - they need to either a) find those experts for advice or b) keep their hands out of it. Legislatures delegating their authority diminishes their office, blurs lines of authority, and lets them abdicate responsibility.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > keep their hands out of it This. I do not think it is appropriate for legislators to delegate as broadly as they have. The default should be for them to not pass laws, if they don’t have time to understand the issues. Instead, they are basically creating new legislative branches under the executive branch.
  - Jcowell 2y ago
    > The default should be for them to not pass laws, if they don’t have time to understand the issues. That’s insanity. Why wait when you can have a regulatory body dedicated to understanding and regulating based on those understanding. If they fuck up , the delegating power has the ability to rein it in.
    - salawat 2y ago
      >If they fuck up , the delegating power has the ability to rein it in. We synonimize "an Act of Congress" with something long, drawn out, and ardorous for a reason. With that ability to rein in locked behind gaining the buy in of the rest of the Congress, it leaves an Executive Agency able to play "scope chicken" with the Congress. Making law is Congress's job. Id a rule needs making, the Legislature should have in place the framework to handle the act of rulemaking; but importantly, seperately from the enforcement mechanism. The Judiciary should equivalently accommodate a venue for redress of grievance w.r.t interpretations in play. Failure to do the above without the seperation of power is a failure to govern.

by neaden 2y ago

myworkinisgood 2y ago

[dead]

maxwell 2y ago

Then they can consult with experts, put it in a bill, and vote on it, instead of leaving it up to later extra-legislative discretion from political appointees with questionable expertise. It sounds like you're referring to Locke's view on separation of power? He did hold legislative power supreme over the others like you say, but also noted that legislative power derives its authority from the people (consent of the governed), who have the right to make and unmake the legislature. > And when the people have said we will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men... nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws but as such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them. Representation is now extremely poor in the United States. Colonial Americans enjoyed better representation on paper (though virtual) than the average American does today. People have better representation in Commie China. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries, with over 700k constituents per rep. Compare Nordic countries, with more like 40k per rep, closer to the U.S. in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The only act of Congress I advocate for is repealing the "Permanent" Apportionment Act of 1929.

theptip 2y ago
That doesn’t solve the problem; how do you decide the ambiguity in the meantime? (Concretely, some court is evaluating a dispute. Does the EPA have the right to decree X, or not?)
- maxwell 2y ago
  In the U.S., the federal government only has powers that have been explicitly allocated by the sovereign (the People). The executive, under the guise of any three letters, can't "decree" shit beyond EOs. The President has enforcement and federative powers, not legislative.
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    >by the sovereign (the People) This is a mere magick trick that can only ultimately be enforced by private firearms. You do not hold allodial title to the things which you need to live. You can be involuntarily caged for long periods for mere possession of materials or objects. You are a subject, not a sovereign. Try protecting yourself from kidnap by an enforcer next time he catches you with a joint, you will be swiftly escalated to execution if you successfully fight off application of chains. You are not sovereign if your choices are death or obedience (even to the god/religion "The Law"). Our system kills sovereigns systematically and convinces its subjects they're sovereign (they're not) in order to lessen the odds said subjects learn from the state and get violent against its enforcers. Democracy did not help us: it helps the ruling elite by playing a magick trick on you, convincing you to give up violent power and accept the unacceptable because "We have rules and a system, and you agreed to those rules so tough nuts! You've got a chance for change next election cycle." Its original intent was noble, but seriously try BSing me that we have any effect after the comedic horror show last night...

caseysoftware 2y ago

> The legislature are not experts and it is reasonable for them to rely on the experts in the agencies that they created to fine tune implementation. That gets to the deeper problem.. If you have one group that is in charge of creating the rules, interpreting the rules, and enforcing the rules, you can't trust the process is independent and there's equal treatment. If the legislature are not experts - and they're not on many many topics - they need to either a) find those experts for advice or b) keep their hands out of it. Legislatures delegating their authority diminishes their office, blurs lines of authority, and lets them abdicate responsibility.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> keep their hands out of it This. I do not think it is appropriate for legislators to delegate as broadly as they have. The default should be for them to not pass laws, if they don’t have time to understand the issues. Instead, they are basically creating new legislative branches under the executive branch.
- Jcowell 2y ago
  > The default should be for them to not pass laws, if they don’t have time to understand the issues. That’s insanity. Why wait when you can have a regulatory body dedicated to understanding and regulating based on those understanding. If they fuck up , the delegating power has the ability to rein it in.
  - salawat 2y ago
    >If they fuck up , the delegating power has the ability to rein it in. We synonimize "an Act of Congress" with something long, drawn out, and ardorous for a reason. With that ability to rein in locked behind gaining the buy in of the rest of the Congress, it leaves an Executive Agency able to play "scope chicken" with the Congress. Making law is Congress's job. Id a rule needs making, the Legislature should have in place the framework to handle the act of rulemaking; but importantly, seperately from the enforcement mechanism. The Judiciary should equivalently accommodate a venue for redress of grievance w.r.t interpretations in play. Failure to do the above without the seperation of power is a failure to govern.