5 ms·

> There is a move afoot Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? I've literally never heard of a

> There is a move afoot Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? I've literally never heard of anything like this before - without further details, this is just political flame-baiting.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
> Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? The supreme court. The removal of Chevron Deference this year means that the courts have given themselves huge amounts of power over any administrative decision that isn't specifically regulated by congress (rather than the prior stance which was to presume that agency decisions were reasonable interpretations of the legislation unless there was clear evidence to the contrary).
- thehappypm 2y ago
  Federal agencies now have oversight from the judicial branch. That's a big check on their power.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    > now They always have?
    - thehappypm 2y ago
      Much less.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Yes. Previously the court had to prove that something an agency did went against the mandate congress gave it, to strike it down. Now it can just strike it down for no reason. This is useful in times when republicans control the courts and democrats control the executive.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  This is not an accurate description of that decision. Agencies no longer get special privileges in interpreting the scope of what Congress delegated to them. Within the scope of what Congress delegated to them, they still have an much power and discretion as ever.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    There was an argument about noncompetes and the FTC in front of a Federal judge recently. The judge said, "Even as the agency has the power, I don't feel sufficiently convinced by their argument and will block it anyway." That doesn't sound like they have as much power in their delegated responsibilities if an arbitrary judge says "... and you also have to convince me personally, even though you're entitled to do it."
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    if Congress wanted to delegate decision making to the judicial branch they can pass laws that do so. they pass a law saying that the agency can make decisions, those decisions should be respected. this decision is right the equivalent of if the courts decided they had the power to block laws that the court thought were bad policy
    - jtbayly 2y ago
      You should read about the non-delegation principle and why it exists. As Wikipedia says, “It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of powers of any of the three branches of government to either of the other, to the administrative state, or to private entities.” What you are proposing is that Congress be allowed to abolish its own power, completely destroying the constitution.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > What you are proposing is that Congress be allowed to abolish its own power, completely destroying the constitution. Who cares if they had that ability? They wouldn't use it. And even if they did, it wouldn't violate separation of powers. And even if they did, they could make a new law that takes it back. Of all the worries about delegation, this one seems like the least meaningful.
Curvature5868 2y ago
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations...
- throw10920 2y ago
  Chevron is irrelevant here and does not support the argument being made, unless you're moving the goalposts.
rat87 2y ago
The politicians on the supreme court and while the case was pretty recent the move to limit it dates back a long time before that https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
- specialist 2y ago
  Yes and: Two (of many, many) books which detail two separate efforts to dismantle our administrative state are: Lobbying America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691168016 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691168016 the history of how Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, et al reacted to The New Deal by transitioning from trade groups to political players. Democracy in Chains https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980974 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stea... shares (Nobel winning economist) James McGill Buchanan's role in bootstrapping the Southern flavored conservative movement (libertarian "free enterprise" segregationists reacting to Civil Rights Era and The Great Society).
eadmund 2y ago
> By what legal means is this happening? Article I, section 1 of the Constitution: ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ It doesn’t say, ‘Congress may delegate its legislative Powers to the Executive.’ Arguably, the ‘shall’ language forbids that! Article I, section 8 does give the Congress the authority to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its regulation of interstate commerce (among other things), but … it’s not necessary to delegate legislative power in order to execute the law.
- intended 2y ago
  Agencies require masters and Phds amongst their experts. Those people need to be paid, and their services accounted for. Those outreach and comms programs also need to be handled. Congress can’t add 300 days into 24 hours. So this is a reading of law kinda like an absolutist readings of a text.
- specialist 2y ago
  While complimentary, the various policy, legislating, rules making, procedures, and enforcement are distinct activities in the governmental stack. By necessity, legislators delegate rule making to agencies. Who do you want determining the precise definition of a kilogram? Congress or NIST? By necessity, some rules have the force of law. Like how many state's Secretaries of State are entrusted with clearly scoped essential administrivia, like how to run elections. Do you really want legislators doing the technical and operational evaluation of tabulators? Of course, precisely where the lines are between various jurisdictions must be adjudicated. That's why we have the courts. IIRC, most cases heard by SCOTUS pertain to administrative law. How else could our government function?
  - eadmund 2y ago
    > While complimentary, the various policy, legislating, rules making, procedures, and enforcement are distinct activities in the governmental stack. I agree that there are distinct activities. In our system, there are three distinct activities: lawmaking, law execution and law application; they correspond to the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. It’s clear to me that regulations with the force of law must be passed by the Congress, while regulations applied within the executive without the force of law may be promulgated by the executive. > By necessity, legislators delegate rule making to agencies. I don’t see that it is in any way necessary, and I do see that it is extremely dangerous to a republican system of government. Every member of the executive ultimately answers to a single man: the President. If the Congress enables the President to dictate the content of a law, then that one man is a dictator. The Founders did not want a king, and the Constitution does not allow one. Again, to quote the document: ‘All [emphasis added] legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress …’ Not some legislative powers, but all. > Who do you want determining the precise definition of a kilogram? Congress or NIST? It’s not about what you or I want; it’s about what the supreme law of the land allows. As it happens, it wouldn’t bother me if Congress set the definition of the kilogram. Why would it bother you? > Do you really want legislators doing the technical and operational evaluation of tabulators? Again, it’s not about what I want, but what the law requires. In the case of tabulation, that seems pretty clearly an executive responsibility. The rules for tabulation seem to be pretty clearly a legislative responsibility. If one doesn’t like that arrangement, then one is free to advocate for changing the Constitution! An amendment such as ‘The President or his delegate may issue a law defining weights and measures’ would work. I think that it’d be a bad idea, because it gives too much authority to one man (imagine if some future president issued a law defining that any use of the meter is to be punished with death …).
theossuary 2y ago
You shouldn't assume others are acting in bad faith when the much more likely explanation is you're just not paying attention. Three major developments from the courts in this direction have been: - The overturning of Chevron gave courts the power to interpret portions of laws written by subject matter experts, instead of those experts themselves. - The big questions doctrine has allowed the courts to decide when the legislature has deligated too much power. - Cornerpost has removed the statue of limitations for challenge policies and rules out in place by agencies. These together clearly paint a picture. Any policy can be challenged (in any venue, allowing the plaintiff to pick their venue). This allows policies in place for decades to be challenged and brought to the supreme court. The most recent court has adopted the major questions doctrine, allowing them to strike down any policy they feel pertain to "issues of major political or economic significance." (no they didn't define it more than that). Or, if they can't make that argument, they can interpret the law to strike down the policy due to the overturning of Chevron. We've seen an unprecedented shift of power to the supreme court in the last few years. They're using the disfunction in the legislature as an opening to gain power. Which is scary considering it's a group of 9 unelected people with lifetime appointments. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-v-board-of-governors-of-the-federal-reserve-system/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-...
- soco 2y ago
  The Romanian supreme court just decided to block the presidential elections. They might have had reasons, but they definitely didn't have the mandate, yet they decided it nevertheless and because they are supreme nobody can challenge them. I'm sure the US supreme court (and more) is warming up to this concept.
  - immibis 2y ago
    You aren't listening. Read about the reasons they did that, before concluding they did it for no reason.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Der_Einzige 2y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

> Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? The supreme court. The removal of Chevron Deference this year means that the courts have given themselves huge amounts of power over any administrative decision that isn't specifically regulated by congress (rather than the prior stance which was to presume that agency decisions were reasonable interpretations of the legislation unless there was clear evidence to the contrary).

thehappypm 2y ago
Federal agencies now have oversight from the judicial branch. That's a big check on their power.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  > now They always have?
  - thehappypm 2y ago
    Much less.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Yes. Previously the court had to prove that something an agency did went against the mandate congress gave it, to strike it down. Now it can just strike it down for no reason. This is useful in times when republicans control the courts and democrats control the executive.
tbrownaw 2y ago
This is not an accurate description of that decision. Agencies no longer get special privileges in interpreting the scope of what Congress delegated to them. Within the scope of what Congress delegated to them, they still have an much power and discretion as ever.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  There was an argument about noncompetes and the FTC in front of a Federal judge recently. The judge said, "Even as the agency has the power, I don't feel sufficiently convinced by their argument and will block it anyway." That doesn't sound like they have as much power in their delegated responsibilities if an arbitrary judge says "... and you also have to convince me personally, even though you're entitled to do it."
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  if Congress wanted to delegate decision making to the judicial branch they can pass laws that do so. they pass a law saying that the agency can make decisions, those decisions should be respected. this decision is right the equivalent of if the courts decided they had the power to block laws that the court thought were bad policy
  - jtbayly 2y ago
    You should read about the non-delegation principle and why it exists. As Wikipedia says, “It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of powers of any of the three branches of government to either of the other, to the administrative state, or to private entities.” What you are proposing is that Congress be allowed to abolish its own power, completely destroying the constitution.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > What you are proposing is that Congress be allowed to abolish its own power, completely destroying the constitution. Who cares if they had that ability? They wouldn't use it. And even if they did, it wouldn't violate separation of powers. And even if they did, they could make a new law that takes it back. Of all the worries about delegation, this one seems like the least meaningful.

Curvature5868 2y ago

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations...

throw10920 2y ago
Chevron is irrelevant here and does not support the argument being made, unless you're moving the goalposts.

rat87 2y ago

The politicians on the supreme court and while the case was pretty recent the move to limit it dates back a long time before that https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

specialist 2y ago
Yes and: Two (of many, many) books which detail two separate efforts to dismantle our administrative state are: Lobbying America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691168016 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691168016 the history of how Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, et al reacted to The New Deal by transitioning from trade groups to political players. Democracy in Chains https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980974 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stea... shares (Nobel winning economist) James McGill Buchanan's role in bootstrapping the Southern flavored conservative movement (libertarian "free enterprise" segregationists reacting to Civil Rights Era and The Great Society).

eadmund 2y ago

> By what legal means is this happening? Article I, section 1 of the Constitution: ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ It doesn’t say, ‘Congress may delegate its legislative Powers to the Executive.’ Arguably, the ‘shall’ language forbids that! Article I, section 8 does give the Congress the authority to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its regulation of interstate commerce (among other things), but … it’s not necessary to delegate legislative power in order to execute the law.

intended 2y ago
Agencies require masters and Phds amongst their experts. Those people need to be paid, and their services accounted for. Those outreach and comms programs also need to be handled. Congress can’t add 300 days into 24 hours. So this is a reading of law kinda like an absolutist readings of a text.
specialist 2y ago
While complimentary, the various policy, legislating, rules making, procedures, and enforcement are distinct activities in the governmental stack. By necessity, legislators delegate rule making to agencies. Who do you want determining the precise definition of a kilogram? Congress or NIST? By necessity, some rules have the force of law. Like how many state's Secretaries of State are entrusted with clearly scoped essential administrivia, like how to run elections. Do you really want legislators doing the technical and operational evaluation of tabulators? Of course, precisely where the lines are between various jurisdictions must be adjudicated. That's why we have the courts. IIRC, most cases heard by SCOTUS pertain to administrative law. How else could our government function?
- eadmund 2y ago
  > While complimentary, the various policy, legislating, rules making, procedures, and enforcement are distinct activities in the governmental stack. I agree that there are distinct activities. In our system, there are three distinct activities: lawmaking, law execution and law application; they correspond to the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. It’s clear to me that regulations with the force of law must be passed by the Congress, while regulations applied within the executive without the force of law may be promulgated by the executive. > By necessity, legislators delegate rule making to agencies. I don’t see that it is in any way necessary, and I do see that it is extremely dangerous to a republican system of government. Every member of the executive ultimately answers to a single man: the President. If the Congress enables the President to dictate the content of a law, then that one man is a dictator. The Founders did not want a king, and the Constitution does not allow one. Again, to quote the document: ‘All [emphasis added] legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress …’ Not some legislative powers, but all. > Who do you want determining the precise definition of a kilogram? Congress or NIST? It’s not about what you or I want; it’s about what the supreme law of the land allows. As it happens, it wouldn’t bother me if Congress set the definition of the kilogram. Why would it bother you? > Do you really want legislators doing the technical and operational evaluation of tabulators? Again, it’s not about what I want, but what the law requires. In the case of tabulation, that seems pretty clearly an executive responsibility. The rules for tabulation seem to be pretty clearly a legislative responsibility. If one doesn’t like that arrangement, then one is free to advocate for changing the Constitution! An amendment such as ‘The President or his delegate may issue a law defining weights and measures’ would work. I think that it’d be a bad idea, because it gives too much authority to one man (imagine if some future president issued a law defining that any use of the meter is to be punished with death …).

theossuary 2y ago

You shouldn't assume others are acting in bad faith when the much more likely explanation is you're just not paying attention. Three major developments from the courts in this direction have been: - The overturning of Chevron gave courts the power to interpret portions of laws written by subject matter experts, instead of those experts themselves. - The big questions doctrine has allowed the courts to decide when the legislature has deligated too much power. - Cornerpost has removed the statue of limitations for challenge policies and rules out in place by agencies. These together clearly paint a picture. Any policy can be challenged (in any venue, allowing the plaintiff to pick their venue). This allows policies in place for decades to be challenged and brought to the supreme court. The most recent court has adopted the major questions doctrine, allowing them to strike down any policy they feel pertain to "issues of major political or economic significance." (no they didn't define it more than that). Or, if they can't make that argument, they can interpret the law to strike down the policy due to the overturning of Chevron. We've seen an unprecedented shift of power to the supreme court in the last few years. They're using the disfunction in the legislature as an opening to gain power. Which is scary considering it's a group of 9 unelected people with lifetime appointments. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-v-board-of-governors-of-the-federal-reserve-system/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-...

soco 2y ago
The Romanian supreme court just decided to block the presidential elections. They might have had reasons, but they definitely didn't have the mandate, yet they decided it nevertheless and because they are supreme nobody can challenge them. I'm sure the US supreme court (and more) is warming up to this concept.
- immibis 2y ago
  You aren't listening. Read about the reasons they did that, before concluding they did it for no reason.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]