> Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it. The question is if they could've passed it to begin with. There is nothing in the constitution

> Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it. The question is if they could've passed it to begin with. There is nothing in the constitution giving Congress the power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, much less deprive the courts of their interpretive role. > Should the policies and regulations of 100s of industries be decided by: > 1. People who are only familiar with court proceedings 2. Experts in those industries with experience in those industries The first one is actually better, because it makes it harder for the industry to capture the decisionmakers. Meanwhile the experts are still in the court, they just have to argue their case before the judge instead of having the parties argue their case before the "experts" with a sack of cash.