Wasn't "You will note that what the legislature passes is not specific law but a guiding vision (clean air, clean water, etc.) which is then handed over to the various affected bureaucracies who then write the rules, regulations, and therefore laws to be followed. These bureaucracies are not in and of the constitution but were cr…
Wasn't "You will note that what the legislature passes is not specific law but a guiding vision (clean air, clean water, etc.) which is then handed over to the various affected bureaucracies who then write the rules, regulations, and therefore laws to be followed. These bureaucracies are not in and of the constitution but were created in the last 100 years for this purpose" the answer to your question?
Its like the the SEC having people from the industry it regulates, walk in and out writing the rules. Congress formed the SEC. They don't write the rules of the SEC.
The distinction is not that the legislature isn’t passing laws—it’s that they are passing broad legislative frameworks, which delegate the power to create specific, enforceable rules to unelected regulatory agencies. Take the Clean Air Act, for example. Congress passed it, but it doesn’t contain the detailed emission limits or industry-specific mandates that businesses must follow. Instead, the EPA interprets the law and crafts regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which have the force of law but were not directly written or voted on by Congress.
So, while Congress technically passes “laws,” the granular, enforceable rules that actually govern industries and individuals are often written by agencies, not legislators. That’s the point being made.
The clean air act is a law. Experts figure out how to work within the framework of the law. MOC can barely understand their job, much less that of a specialist. What else is congress for?
You're absolutely right that the Clean Air Act is a law—but the critical point is how that law functions. Congress passes broad legislation, but the specifics that businesses and individuals must actually comply with are written by regulatory agencies.
Saying "experts figure out how to work within the framework" acknowledges this reality: those experts are not elected lawmakers, yet their rules carry the same weight as law. The Clean Air Act didn't specify exact emissions limits; the EPA did. The SEC enforces financial rules Congress never directly voted on. The FDA determines drug approval standards, not Congress.
And here's the real kicker: many of these "experts" come straight from the industries they regulate, crafting rules that impact their former (and often future) employers. They walk into the EPA, write the rules, then walk back out into high-paying industry jobs. That’s not just delegation—it’s a revolving door that blurs the line between regulator and regulated.
So the question isn't whether Congress "makes laws"—it's whether the real power of lawmaking has been handed over to unelected agencies and the industries they’re supposed to oversee. Who’s really governing?
This is how it has worked since our experiment began. Congress has oversight after they pass a law. Specifically how would you expect it to work otherwise? Should an elected official make every granular rule?
There is a management notion called desired outcome. Most manager/supervisors micromanage every little thing their employees do and how they do it. Great managers develop a strategy with their staff and manage to the desired outcome. That is how our legislative branch was intended to work. Oversight is the same as managing the desired outcome.
Who is really governing? What is the root of the root and the bud of the bud and the sky of the sky? The entities filling the pockets of our elected officials.
Darrell,
Wasn't "You will note that what the legislature passes is not specific law but a guiding vision (clean air, clean water, etc.) which is then handed over to the various affected bureaucracies who then write the rules, regulations, and therefore laws to be followed. These bureaucracies are not in and of the constitution but were created in the last 100 years for this purpose" the answer to your question?
Its like the the SEC having people from the industry it regulates, walk in and out writing the rules. Congress formed the SEC. They don't write the rules of the SEC.
Give me an example of a specific law the legislature passed that is not a law. I’m still waiting.
Darrell,
The distinction is not that the legislature isn’t passing laws—it’s that they are passing broad legislative frameworks, which delegate the power to create specific, enforceable rules to unelected regulatory agencies. Take the Clean Air Act, for example. Congress passed it, but it doesn’t contain the detailed emission limits or industry-specific mandates that businesses must follow. Instead, the EPA interprets the law and crafts regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which have the force of law but were not directly written or voted on by Congress.
So, while Congress technically passes “laws,” the granular, enforceable rules that actually govern industries and individuals are often written by agencies, not legislators. That’s the point being made.
The clean air act is a law. Experts figure out how to work within the framework of the law. MOC can barely understand their job, much less that of a specialist. What else is congress for?
Darrell,
You're absolutely right that the Clean Air Act is a law—but the critical point is how that law functions. Congress passes broad legislation, but the specifics that businesses and individuals must actually comply with are written by regulatory agencies.
Saying "experts figure out how to work within the framework" acknowledges this reality: those experts are not elected lawmakers, yet their rules carry the same weight as law. The Clean Air Act didn't specify exact emissions limits; the EPA did. The SEC enforces financial rules Congress never directly voted on. The FDA determines drug approval standards, not Congress.
And here's the real kicker: many of these "experts" come straight from the industries they regulate, crafting rules that impact their former (and often future) employers. They walk into the EPA, write the rules, then walk back out into high-paying industry jobs. That’s not just delegation—it’s a revolving door that blurs the line between regulator and regulated.
So the question isn't whether Congress "makes laws"—it's whether the real power of lawmaking has been handed over to unelected agencies and the industries they’re supposed to oversee. Who’s really governing?
“…been anded over…?”
This is how it has worked since our experiment began. Congress has oversight after they pass a law. Specifically how would you expect it to work otherwise? Should an elected official make every granular rule?
There is a management notion called desired outcome. Most manager/supervisors micromanage every little thing their employees do and how they do it. Great managers develop a strategy with their staff and manage to the desired outcome. That is how our legislative branch was intended to work. Oversight is the same as managing the desired outcome.
Who is really governing? What is the root of the root and the bud of the bud and the sky of the sky? The entities filling the pockets of our elected officials.