4 ms·

Yes, the election of our legislators, whose job it is to craft laws. Not the election of one single person whose job it is to oversee the enforcement of those l

Yes, the election of our legislators, whose job it is to craft laws. Not the election of one single person whose job it is to oversee the enforcement of those laws. Our government is built with its powers divided up, and the ability to change law intentionally kept out of the hands of individual deciders. The president isn't even (technically) allowed to send the military, of which they are the constitutional head, to war without congress' consent. If anything the last two elections should have taught everyone the dangers of resting so much power in the hands of a single person.

jjk166 2y ago
If the Executive is not allowed to decide how laws are executed, what exactly has he been elected to oversee? The agencies of the executive branch have been making decisions on how to enforce the law based on the president's discretion since Washington. That's how the constitution was set up to work. That's how congress has assumed every law they've passed would be handled. They have always been free to put more details into their laws to take the discretion out of the hands of the executive, and they have chosen not to, as is their prerogative.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  Yes, the executive is allowed to decide how the laws are executed. And in the event that such laws are ambiguous, the courts are supposed to make a judgement on what the law is. If you default to just deferring to the interpretation of the executive, why have a legislative branch at all? Why not just pass a law that says "regulate all the things"? Our government is intentionally limited. It may only do the things it has been explicitly granted the power to do. When whether that power has been granted is ambiguous, that is something that needs actual judgement on. We should not have a default to the government's own interpretation. We certainly don't (try to) default to the courts just assuming whatever the police say the law is when it's ambiguous is what the law is. Why should we do that for other regulations?

jjk166 2y ago

If the Executive is not allowed to decide how laws are executed, what exactly has he been elected to oversee? The agencies of the executive branch have been making decisions on how to enforce the law based on the president's discretion since Washington. That's how the constitution was set up to work. That's how congress has assumed every law they've passed would be handled. They have always been free to put more details into their laws to take the discretion out of the hands of the executive, and they have chosen not to, as is their prerogative.

tpmoney 2y ago
Yes, the executive is allowed to decide how the laws are executed. And in the event that such laws are ambiguous, the courts are supposed to make a judgement on what the law is. If you default to just deferring to the interpretation of the executive, why have a legislative branch at all? Why not just pass a law that says "regulate all the things"? Our government is intentionally limited. It may only do the things it has been explicitly granted the power to do. When whether that power has been granted is ambiguous, that is something that needs actual judgement on. We should not have a default to the government's own interpretation. We certainly don't (try to) default to the courts just assuming whatever the police say the law is when it's ambiguous is what the law is. Why should we do that for other regulations?