Executive Order Creates Political Officers for all US Regulatory Agencies

[Kuciwalker]

If a scientist at a government lab wants $15,000 for his experiment, should Congress have to specifically approve it? Or maybe, just maybe, could it delegate that power?

[Berzerker]

This is about regulations, Kuci, not how budgeted money trickles down within an agency. Regulations we have to obey... you know... laws. But again, no, it cannot delegate that power.

[Kuciwalker]

I think the vast majority of people would find that position absurd.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Kuci's right on this one. Statuatory law is the sole realm of Congress, but regulatory law can be delegated, and Congress has been doing so for ages. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Congress's right to do this, within some (generally broad) guidelines.

But this isn't about that; it's about whether you want, say, EPA regulations to be written by unresponsive, territorial EPA bureaucrats who know nothing of the world outside of Washington, or whether you want them to be written by guys from Halliburton. As I said before: ain't democracy grand?

[Kuciwalker]

How come there isn't a million monkeys with typewriters option? Surely that would produce better results.

[Perfection]

Not Neccesarily

[Drake Tungsten]

But this isn't about that; it's about whether you want, say, EPA regulations to be written by unresponsive, territorial EPA bureaucrats who know nothing of the world outside of Washington, or whether you want them to be written by guys from Halliburton. As I said before: ain't democracy grand?

Almost makes the idea of getting rid of the EPA/OSHA/etc. sound ok...

[Berzerker]

I think the vast majority of people would find that position absurd.

The vast majority of people are ignorant of the Constitution; you're arguing for what you want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says.

Kuci's right on this one. Statuatory law is the sole realm of Congress, but regulatory law can be delegated, and Congress has been doing so for ages. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Congress's right to do this, within some (generally broad) guidelines.

He's wrong on this one, the Constitution doesn't say that. And the fact you didn't quote the Constitution and instead relied on what Congress has been doing with the court's blessing is no different than arguing the Prez can declare war because Congress has delegated that power.

[Kuciwalker]

The vast majority of people are ignorant of the Constitution; you're arguing for what you want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says.

I think the vast majority of Constitutional scholars would find that position absurd.

I think you'll find that there were already federal agencies making "laws" within a decade of the Constitution's ratification. That speaks pretty well to intent, doesn't it?

He's wrong on this one, the Constitution doesn't say that.

You are an idiot.

[Berzerker]

I think the vast majority of Constitutional scholars would find that position absurd.

Go right ahead and quote them, they wont quote the Constitution either.

I think you'll find that there were already federal agencies making "laws" within a decade of the Constitution's ratification. That speaks pretty well to intent, doesn't it?

Find it yourself

You are an idiot.

You're still wrong

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
He's wrong on this one, the Constitution doesn't say that. And the fact you didn't quote the Constitution and instead relied on what Congress has been doing with the court's blessing is no different than arguing the Prez can declare war because Congress has delegated that power.

You're right that it's not in the Constitution. However, what is in the Constitution is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution actually means. Therefore, if Congress delegates regulatory powers to executive agencies, is legally challenged for doing so, and the Court sides with Congress, then delegating regulatory authority is constitutional and therefore within Congress's power.

[Berzerker]

However, what is in the Constitution is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution actually means.

The Framers would dispute the notion they failed to tell us what the Constitution means. But feel free to quote this amazing power because it would seem to trump both Congress and the Prez... Hey, Congress doesn't have the power to declare war because the SCOTUS says so? And after the SCOTUS declares war (they say the Constitution gives them the power), Joe the Janitor will be the Commander in Chief, not the Prez, cuz the SCOTUS says so? The role of the judiciary has grown right along with the rest of the government.

Therefore, if Congress delegates regulatory powers to executive agencies, is legally challenged for doing so, and the Court sides with Congress, then delegating regulatory authority is constitutional and therefore within Congress's power.

Thats not an argument about what the Constitution says.

You're right that it's not in the Constitution.

Why do you think that is? You think the Framers overlooked this glaring omission? Or maybe they didn't want unelected bureaucrats writing laws/regulations? You know, the situation they faced as subjects of England?

[Sandman]

Uh uh, Saddam had not only a loyal military he had an armed population supporting him. If the feds pissed off 50 million gun owners enough for a rebellion, the feds would not have a loyal military or an armed population for support.

Why wouldn't loyalist militias form to help the government, as they do in every wartorn country?

[Berzerker]

they would, they'd just be outnumbered and have even less experience than the rebels.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The Framers would dispute the notion they failed to tell us what the Constitution means. But feel free to quote this amazing power because it would seem to trump both Congress and the Prez... Hey, Congress doesn't have the power to declare war because the SCOTUS says so? And after the SCOTUS declares war (they say the Constitution gives them the power), Joe the Janitor will be the Commander in Chief, not the Prez, cuz the SCOTUS says so? The role of the judiciary has grown right along with the rest of the government.

But the SCOTUS aquired that power during the lifetime of the framers (well most of them), and they were not opposed to it.