I think a technocratic executive bureaucracy, created and overseen by the legislature, is better than demanding the legislature directly craft all regulations and have judges adjudicate every nuance.
Why do you think that's better? Whose priorities and interests do we expect these 'technocratic executive bureaucracies' to pursue if allowed to be the arbiters of their own authority, and what mechanism would ensure they remain accountable to the public and operate within the applicable constraints of prevailing law and the constiution?
Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life?
Why do you think federal agencies are arbiters of their own authority? Congress created them, Congress can reel them in.
I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate.
Maybe, MAYBE some kind of rubber stamp process where legislators get a 90 day window on rejecting new regulations with a "default approve". But I have no faith that a modern society can have all rules and edge cases pre-emptively defined in law.
> Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life?
They shouldn't. No single entity should ever be allowed to "to write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life".
Thankfully, with this decision, we have restored a situation where law and policy are developed and refined through the interplay of disparate branches of government with ultimate accountability to the public itself, with edge cases handled by the specialists who actually have the relevant expertise in interpreting law.
> I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't?
Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight.
> But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate.
Unelected appointees who are hired on the basis of their expertise in a technical field, without necessarily having any special competence at handling the normative aspect of their duties, should absolutely not have a broad mandate to decide what the limits of their own authority are.
>They shouldn't. No single entity should ever be allowed to "to write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life".
You shouldn't be having this conversation if you do not understand the basic civics of the US government and the role the legislative body plays, let alone your own damn argument.
>Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight.
No, that's no my implicit argument so you're wrong on the facts. And you keep saying they are the arbiters of their own authority.