| I'd suggest you consider reading the laws that Congress has passed to create agencies. Congress already does this. Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do. Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory. Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes. So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars. A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"? Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows! Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law. Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds. Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running. Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby. |
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want the country to just assume (and not even something I'm sure I want any law to specify outright either...)