This is simply wrong.

Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes.

Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.

▲

danielmarkbruce 7 months ago | parent [-]

Nope, it's right, every single part.

Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR

Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s...

Search for "major rules". Think about those.

They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like dodd-frank, written by incompetent fools who left it so broad that it said both nothing and everything (no constraints in practice) - and is now the source of 100s of rules across various agencies.

Yes, precedent, part of my point. The constitution says nothing about it. The first regulatory agency came about 100 years after the constitution - that isn't by chance.

It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.

▲

anon84873628 7 months ago | parent [-]

I agree with some of your point but don't find your rationale convincing.

>Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing [stuff]

Yeah, because the constitution was intended to allow Congress to pass laws that define the rest of "the government". The constitution is not supposed to be the _only_ law.

>It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.

The founders knew they couldn't predict the future which is why they set it up so Congress could make laws. Again, the whole thing is working as designed.

Now, you could say that these laws have had unintended consequences, or no longer serve their purpose, or need modification for current times, etc etc. Those would be policy positions, not the sign of some constitutional crisis.

And critically, it would be the role of Congress to correct, not the president. Now, yes, absolutely, voting for president is a way to enforce checks and balances on Congress when they are not responding effectively. However, completely eroding all checks and balances on _Executive_ power in the process, which seems to be happening now, doesn't look like a great move to me.

	▲	danielmarkbruce 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Congress is called out in the constitution to pass laws, not create entities run by unelected people to pass laws. The regulatory agencies (as opposed to nonregulatory agencies) really seem a step too far. "Administrative law" should not be a subject required. "sources of law" should not include administrative entities. If congress is doing the wrong thing creating these entities (and many believe they are), the idea of checks and balances is for someone else to stop them, not themselves. The checks on congress are the president and the courts.