Is that your most charitable take on my position? FWIW, I'm describing the status quo - how does that "remove democracy", and from where? That said...
> It is a terrible reason to remove democracy.
I'm speculating onto your meaning a bit here, but I don't want a congress-critter with no college education in science (or their lobbyists) writing guidance on allowable ppm of carcinogenic material I can be exposed to. I'd rather have PhD nerds at the FDA do it: if that's what you'd call "removing democracy" - then we irreconcilably disagree on a fundamental level. Logistically, how many laws would Congress have to pass each year to have a functional society just to keep up with research and industry developments?
Congress is elected by and serve at the pleasure of the American people.
Public servants in Executive agencies are appointed at the pleasure of the President and his Cabinet as applicable, with some appointments requiring Senate confirmation.
It is therefore "removing democracy" to task unelected public servants with writing laws and regulations. The task of legislating is the duty of the legislature, Congress. The Executive Branch's job is to execute the laws as legislated by Congress, hence their name.
>Logistically, how many laws would Congress have to pass each year to have a functional society just to keep up with research and industry developments?
More than now but less than what would be humanly impossible. Make those fucking Congresscritters earn their pay and votes.
As a co-equal branch of government, the legislature has the right to delegate its rule-making authority as it deems fit and provide oversight to whatever individual or body they delegate to - or create said body through passage of a new law.
Indeed, but there are limits to that delegated authority as has been ruled by SCOTUS and particularly when the laws governing that delegation of authority are badly written.
When such laws/doctrine have been widely accepted as settled for many decades, it becomes arguable that it's an instance of judicial activism by SCOTUS, and possibly a power grab to pick and choose on a case-by-case basis which laws (and rule-making bodies) SCOTUS likes for non-legal, partisan reasons. Such an arrangement would make the legislature subservient to the judiciary, rather than co-equal.
> It is a terrible reason to remove democracy.
I'm speculating onto your meaning a bit here, but I don't want a congress-critter with no college education in science (or their lobbyists) writing guidance on allowable ppm of carcinogenic material I can be exposed to. I'd rather have PhD nerds at the FDA do it: if that's what you'd call "removing democracy" - then we irreconcilably disagree on a fundamental level. Logistically, how many laws would Congress have to pass each year to have a functional society just to keep up with research and industry developments?