3 ms·
Disagree. The US legal system runs on the principle that unless something is forbidden by law, it is permitted. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding
by brookst 2y ago
Disagree. The US legal system runs on the principle that unless something is forbidden by law, it is permitted.
There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal.
And if for some reason this is the one exception to the way our legal system works, where the lack of express permission means it is forbidden, isn’t it odd that the courts have the power to make this decision despite not having a written mandate.
This is absolutely a power grab, with the intent of “breaking the administrative state”, as Steve Brannon promised. It is not possible for 438 people to legislate the implementation details of every policy in the entire country on an ongoing basis. This is basically Make Rivers Flammable Again.
- nathanaldensr 2y ago> There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal. Citation needed. Separation of Powers would like a word with you.
- brookst 2y agoCitation needed indeed. I claim an absence of a prohibition. If you have text saying “Congress may not delegate”, please cite it. Note that the phrase “separation of powers” does not appear in the Constitution.
- friend_and_foe 2y agoYou have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system. Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.