[vannevar]

>It will be very interesting to see what happens if SCOTUS tries to roll back the administrative state...

"Interesting" to say the least. Trying to govern a modern nation of 370 million people based on a literal 18th-century interpretation of a Constitution designed to govern a handful of former colonies is going to be a (very predictable) disaster, which is why the Court hasn't done it before.

[refurb]

Appeal to modernity fallacy (I just invented it).

But you’re wrong to argue the “court hasn’t done it”, because the court has been doing it all along. It’s called precedence.

[vannevar]

I was referring specifically to striking down long-standing precedents that endorsed mechanisms like SEC enforcement, and interpreting a right of privacy. What we're seeing is a dramatically stripped-down view of the Constitution. If it were being done as part of a broad social consensus that included a plan to revamp the Constitution to meet modern needs, it would be difficult but beneficial in the long run. But what's happening is more akin to tearing down your own house while you're living in it, with no plan for how to rebuild it.

[beerandt]

You say tearing down, I say reverting tacky renovations that clash with the intended architectural style.

The structural bones of the constitution itself remain strong, and are made more resilient by removing ad-hoc modifications currently straining that framework beyond its intended yielding limits.

[vannevar]

The framing of a house is strong, too, but you can't live in it. Our society and economy are mind-boggling complex compared to the state they were in 1789. Whether you liked the renovations or not is immaterial, they serve a function. Unless you have a plan to replace that function (other than just hand-waving "send it all to the courts"), it will be a disaster.

[xyzzyz]

This country became a world superpower with 100 million residents before it got any of the modern administrative state.

[eesmith]

I think you've got things a bit off. I think more correct ones are:

- "This country became a world power with 76 million residents in 1900 before it got any of the Progressive era administrative state."

- "The country became a world superpower with 180 million residents in 1960 before it got the modern administrative state"

You wrote "world superpower", but the US didn't become a world superpower until WW2, well after ~1915, which is when the population reached 100M.

While the US started becoming a world power in 1898, with the Spanish-American War, and fully became a world power by WWI, that was after the Interstate Commerce Commission was formed in 1887, as the first administrative agency.

Now, you wrote "modern", which of course is in the eye of the beholder and likely is meant to exclude the ICC. Did the modern era start in 1906, with the FDA and the Federal Meat Inspection Act? Or Wilson, with the Federal Reserve (1913) and the FTC (1914)? Or the New Deal (1930s), like the SEC (1934)?

You'll note that all of those were before the US became a modern world superpower, and several before the US population reached 100M.

On the other hand, this beholder - https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state - points out that the modern administrative state didn't start until 1964 with Johnson's Great Society programs.

Here's another equally true statement:

- "The country became a world superpower with 203 million residents in 1970 before 18 year olds had the right to vote."

While true, that wouldn't justify removing the franchise from modern 18 year old.

Your observation, even when corrected, seems to be similarly weak as an argument to remove administrative agencies.

[throw0101a]

> Or Wilson, with the Federal Reserve (1913) […]

The Fed wasn't even the first US central bank. The Founding Fathers (e.g., Morris, Hamilton) created them very early on:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_...

[eesmith]

As I understand it, the complaint about the "administrative state" is that administrative agencies have the ability to regulate and assess fines or other judgments that should properly be part of Congress and the court system.

For example, the Federal Reserve can assess fines without going to court, like: "Federal Reserve Fines Deutsche Bank $41 Million for Deficient Anti-Money Laundering Program" - https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-reserve-fines-deutsche-...

Did the First Bank of the US have regulatory abilities and the ability to access civil fines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_State... says it "did not set monetary policy, regulate private banks, hold their excess reserves, or act as a lender of last resort", which would suggest the answer is "no".

If correct, that would mean it's not part of the "administrative state".