[thfuran]

>This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat

What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?

[sophacles]

Also:

Is it less democratic because unlike laws, there's an open comment period for the public to make their voice heard? (unlike laws or executive orders)

Is it less democratic because it's policy being implemented by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the policy and its effects, rather than by some blowhard trying to score culture war points on twitter than making a policy?

[cal5k]

I'm confused by your questions. Are you suggesting that ignoring the structure of government carefully laid out in the constitution and agreed upon by every state in the union is more democratic because you like the outcome?

This is happening in an election year, so the office of the presidency is driving this for political reasons. I sincerely doubt you'd be comfortable having someone you disagree with politically wield the same powers in the same way.

[sophacles]

I was building on what the comment i replied to said. The concept of "more democratic" is kind of strange. So i comment on things that have elements of democracy.

My first question merely pointed out that the process that exists, with a public comment period etc, is in some ways more democratic than congress passing laws. That is - this is a place where the rulemaking is more inclusive of the public than some having some trash that got themselves elected passing laws on behalf of people they don't actually talk to or consult about those laws.

The second is actually a statement about how it's shockingly responsble for the selfish idiots that get themselves into congress to have somewhat knowledgable, focused people do the work instead of just randomly passing laws based on their twitter feed.

The end of the process initated by executive order in 2021 is happening this year, yes. I've seen people I like and dislike wield that power. Witha ll of them I've agreed with some of the policies they had and disagreed with others. I'm comfortable with it happening generally, but i wish congress would be a little more involved and representative of the people when they set up those powers and issue the directional laws that these people administer. That is not an issue with methodology though, just political opinion about the specific policies.

[cal5k]

> knowledgable, focused people do the work instead of just randomly passing laws based on their twitter feed.

That's not what happens, though. Agency heads are political appointees who take their marching orders from the executive (president). They engage in poor-quality rule-making all the time when it's politically advantageous for the president and/or his party.

Coming from a country with a Westminster system where federal legislation is relatively easy to pass, I strongly believe it's a feature of the US system of government that it's a herculean task for congress to pass new laws and that the executive is very limited in its powers.

The more power that can be devolved to the state and local level, the better - there's no reason to think a small group of people in Washington are capable of making considered decisions on behalf of 330M+ Americans in the majority of circumstances, and that extends to the myriad of federal agencies engaged in the rule-making process.

[thfuran]

And which part of the constitution prevents Congress from passing an act to delegate authority to an agency?

[cal5k]

> Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies?

The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress.

Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with.

Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?