The problem with merely having regulations rather than laws is not a concern that they may not have proper legal authority, but that they are less durable and more easily overturned than laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
I agree, and I'd rather Congress weigh in now that we've had this specific issue flip-flop twice. I do not like the implication that agency rulemaking is anti-democratic though. We have utilized this structure for well over 120 years, or practically half of the country's history.
We have always had things like executive orders. Just an insane number are issued between the Great Depression and WWII, and then we have 100 years of using them as a ham fisted tool for policy.
You may not like it being pointed out, but having rules made by appointed regulators rather than elected legislators is obviously anti-democratic. Yes, delegating powers like this is a practical necessity, but having made that reasonable tradeoff does not erase the reality that it's a less than perfectly democratic process. So is the structure of Congress itself.
First, the US is not a pure democracy. We elect representatives on our behalf to handle voting on matters. So dismissing something as "anti-democratic" is not applicable here.
Our elected officials set up a system where a series of agencies under the Executive Branch may create rules, but the elected officials have oversight authority.
If you disagree, you may petition your state government for a constitutional amendment that prohibits this practice and advocate for additional states to join in.
> So dismissing something as "anti-democratic" is not applicable here.
[...]
> If you disagree, you may petition your state government for a constitutional amendment
I think you're misinterpreting what's being said here in order to over-react. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that executive orders and delegating powers to appointed regulators should be expunged from our system of government. But they should be acknowledged as a necessary evil, and their use minimized when possible, and not allowed to completely replace the legislative process. Whereas you seem to be defending taking those practices to the extreme simply because of historical precedent.
> I think you're misinterpreting what's being said here in order to over-react.
If you can point out how I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to discuss. From what it appears though, we have a disagreement on what we wish to delegate to different branches of government.
> But they should be acknowledged as a necessary evil, and their use minimized when possible
I disagree that executive agency rulemaking is a "necessary evil". Congress can simultaneously be derelict in their duties as a legislative body while having a executive regulatory apparatus that creates rules under their purview.
> Whereas you seem to be defending taking those practices to the extreme simply because of historical precedent.
If not for historical precedent and recognizing the practices we've been utilizing for 4-5 generations of people, what should we prioritize?
> rules made by appointed regulators rather than elected legislators is obviously anti-democratic
The people making the appointments are elected. It is obviously democratic.
The general population can't get together to vote on everything, so we elect representatives to do that job for us. Our representatives can't make rules on minutia, so they appoint regulators. Don't like the regulators? Go talk to your representative.
The opposite is worse: I live in a town that still has old-style town meeting where any resident can show up. It's tyranny of whoever has time to show up and stay up late, because someone will always create an amendment at 11PM to overrule a town-wide vote.
It’s not scope creep as much as recognizing that Congress is less functional than it used to be. Obstruction has been normalized since the backlash to Obama’s election – think about how often people claim you need 60 votes in the senate – and that means anyone who sees a problem has an incentive to figure out how to do it without needing timely action.
You'd rather have some idiotic trash that's been elected to congress have to decide what a safe dose of a drug is than an agency largely staffed by people with deep medical training?
You'd rather have such a decision be at the whims of political showboating and culture wars than what can be proven safe and effective with actual medical testing?
I'd argue that a better use of legislature time would be to find ways to reduce the clout of political beliefs in people appointed to high level positions in the agencies rather than requring the useless fools eleceted to congress getting final say in what the rules are.
Seriously do you think the jewish space laser lady should have any say in sattelites or forest fires? Do you really want the moron that thinks injecting bleach is a viable cure to decide what makes for good medicine? Do you want a fool who think's an ar-15 with a certain set of cosmetics is a scary bad gun, but an ar-15 with hunting stocks isn't the exact same weapon to decide firearm policy?
Those are the people you are suggesting should make the decisions on specifics?
I blame this squarely on the congress. Congress has been the weakest it’s ever been, passing almost nothing substantial. If we had to rely on them to ensure basic things like drug approvals we never have anything. They can barely get funding passed to fund themselves!
Perhaps because Democrats control half of Congress today, and the general trend of Congressional avoidance-of-clear-rulemaking has been the same even during those periods that Dems or Republicans control both chambers.
The filibuster makes this kind of 'control' moot. You need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to actually get anything done (and the Presidency, to not veto). 'Control of half of Congress' when that half is the house, is meaningless.
That applies equally when each party is the filibuster-sized minority in the Senate.
And: if Senate majorities really want to pass something, they can change the filibuster rules – and have, for some topics.
Otherwise, the filibuster is maintained out of tradition, courtesy, and its usefulness as a change-of-control 'debounce' mechanism – as well as providing a convenient excuse for posturing more and doing less, as Congress is wont.
Still, in other eras, Congress was able to move compromise legislation forward. Recently, Congress has been unable to – both parties, no matter the relative control. Any belief that it's only "the other guys" is partisan myside blindness.
