3 ms·

It's worth noting that these "unelected bureaucrats" are nominated by a President for limited terms and confirmed by the Senate, and that all powers they have a

It's worth noting that these "unelected bureaucrats" are nominated by a President for limited terms and confirmed by the Senate, and that all powers they have are bestowed upon them by Congress and can be revoked, and that their regulations have to fit within restrictions that are defined and may be revised by Congress. It's certainly not pretty, but it's not unaccountable, and it seems to be moving things in the generally correct direction. We can hope, anyway.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
(Note: I support the move. However I believe you may be overstating your case a bit.) Accountable in what way? Based on either 1) Doing something so horrendous that would require direct Congressional intervention, which has never (?) happened before? 2) Waiting until a completely new Senate or president is elected, which is basically a 4-8 year cycle? In theory all of these folks are accountable, sure, but in actuality the entire gimmick here is that the bureaucrats can make all the tough choices while Congress grandstands and makes speeches. That way the work gets done and there's nobody really to blame. Some parts of that system are pretty good! Some parts are not. But it's only accountable in the strictest sense. There is only an infinitesimal chance that any citizen could have any influence at all over these types of machinations.
djrogers 12y ago
>> their regulations have to fit within restrictions that are defined and may be revised by Congress This is only notionally true, and history is replete with examples of federal agencies declaring their own authority over things which were obviously not envisioned so. While congress could act to change that, they don't, so power collects.
- chc 12y ago
  That's usually because Congress doesn't object. You may as well say Congress is unaccountable because of public apathy.
  - pc86 12y ago
    They largely are. Congress has what, a 93% re-election rate?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      That's because of (1) limited real choices (yay FPTP elections) and (2) most people are negative about Congress, but that's mostly about the members of Congress that don't represent them; people tend to have a lot higher support for their members of Congress (in both Houses) than for Congress as a whole.
- brown9-2 12y ago
  and history is replete with examples of federal agencies declaring their own authority over things which were obviously not envisioned so What about in this case? Would you argue the Title 2 declaration is within or not within the FCC's mandate? If you agree it is within the mandate, then bringing up unrelated assumptions of authority is not relevant.
- roywiggins 12y ago
  Oftentimes Congress lets this happen -on purpose- so they don't have to publicly take a stand on something.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

(Note: I support the move. However I believe you may be overstating your case a bit.) Accountable in what way? Based on either 1) Doing something so horrendous that would require direct Congressional intervention, which has never (?) happened before? 2) Waiting until a completely new Senate or president is elected, which is basically a 4-8 year cycle? In theory all of these folks are accountable, sure, but in actuality the entire gimmick here is that the bureaucrats can make all the tough choices while Congress grandstands and makes speeches. That way the work gets done and there's nobody really to blame. Some parts of that system are pretty good! Some parts are not. But it's only accountable in the strictest sense. There is only an infinitesimal chance that any citizen could have any influence at all over these types of machinations.

djrogers 12y ago

>> their regulations have to fit within restrictions that are defined and may be revised by Congress This is only notionally true, and history is replete with examples of federal agencies declaring their own authority over things which were obviously not envisioned so. While congress could act to change that, they don't, so power collects.

chc 12y ago
That's usually because Congress doesn't object. You may as well say Congress is unaccountable because of public apathy.
- pc86 12y ago
  They largely are. Congress has what, a 93% re-election rate?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    That's because of (1) limited real choices (yay FPTP elections) and (2) most people are negative about Congress, but that's mostly about the members of Congress that don't represent them; people tend to have a lot higher support for their members of Congress (in both Houses) than for Congress as a whole.
brown9-2 12y ago
and history is replete with examples of federal agencies declaring their own authority over things which were obviously not envisioned so What about in this case? Would you argue the Title 2 declaration is within or not within the FCC's mandate? If you agree it is within the mandate, then bringing up unrelated assumptions of authority is not relevant.
roywiggins 12y ago
Oftentimes Congress lets this happen -on purpose- so they don't have to publicly take a stand on something.