[lenerdenator]

People with this viewpoint seem to forget that Congress often granted these agencies these powers, or at least, were vague enough in their definition to allow it to plausibly happen.

It's also worth noting that many of the people who demand that Congress do these things instead of bureaucrats are saying that in bad faith; that is, they don't want it done at all and know Congress can't possibly come to an agreement on it because they're the same people funding the campaigns of representatives who go out of their way to sink the legislative process.

[cal5k]

The supreme court has been very clear that congress can't delegate lawmaking to executive agencies. So no, I haven't forgotten that at all.

As for it being a feature, you're right - I think the vast majority of legislating should be done at the state and local level. This isn't a secret, it was covered in the Federalist Papers in the 18th century.

What's your argument in favor of federalizing all aspects of law in a large and heterogenous country? Why does the federal government need to force Texas to ban non-competes when Texas has decided not to do so but California has?

What if the next government decides to force California to un-ban non-competes with a new rule issued by Executive Order? Do you not see why this is an unworkable and brittle approach?

[lenerdenator]

> The supreme court has been very clear that congress can't delegate lawmaking to executive agencies. So no, I haven't forgotten that at all.

Well, they do it all the time. FCC, OSHA, EPA... Try taking the approach that you shouldn't have your FCC license (amateur radio, broadcasting, whatever) to the courts because these bureaucrats made up the whole thing. You won't get very far.

> What's your argument in favor of federalizing all aspects of law in a large and heterogenous country?

My argument is that no one actually believes in not federalizing things. Not unless it fits their agenda. See the Comstock Act, for example.

> Why does the federal government need to force Texas to ban non-competes when Texas has decided not to do so but California has?

They need to ban non-competes because they're horrifically abusive of workers and like most things, the corporate class keeps pushing until someone pushes back. Would you like that "someone" to be the FTC through a legal process, or an angry mob tearing people apart? Mobs don't particularly care much about "states' rights" or the writings of a bunch of slave owners who lived before the creation of germ theory, after all.

> What if the next government decides to force California to un-ban non-competes with a new rule issued by Executive Order? Do you not see why this is an unworkable and brittle approach?

What if the next Congress decides the opposite of the current one? What if a future SCOTUS bench decides to contradict a past ruling? What's your point?