3 ms·
Well, yes, because separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law. Judges decide if government enforces the law cor
by kjksf 2y ago
Well, yes, because separation of powers.
Congress makes the laws.
Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law.
Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly.
The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority.
Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress.
It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse without separation of powers.
- consteval 2y agoCongress already made the law. The law says "these guys make the rules". To me, that counts. The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow. I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very long, no? And then wouldn't it go out of date remarkably quickly? Hence, we have the FDA. They know about Red 40 and also medication. What level of specificity do we actually need here? Does Congress need to list out, specifically, what molecular compounds are and are not allowed? That seems absolutely absurd to me. It seems to me that once we get to the FTC or <insert any federal agency you personally disagree with>, suddenly the rules change and congress does need to be absurdly specific. Funny how that works.
- ohashi 2y agoIt's by design, they don't want any regulation. They want government to not work. They are doing their best to make both a reality, at the expense of the average person.