2 ms·
> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the consti
by flanked-evergl 2y ago
> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians.
This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
- consteval 2y agoIt is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago> It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.
- nativeit 2y agoI suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoThe executive has no authority to legislate.