I think J.W. Hampton was rightly decided, but that the “intelligible principle” formulation led later New Deal-era courts astray. The framers might have envisioned Congress delegating the authority to adjust import duties, but I don’t think they envisioned executive agencies fashioning entire codes of law in specific areas, including creating crimes. I agree that the Supreme Court gets to say what the law means, but also agree with Scalia that stare decisis is a matter of policy, not dictate, and the Court could revisit the issue and decide to actually enforce separation of powers.

There’s a whole book on it - ‘why administrative law is unlawful’

Congress can clearly delegate enforcement authority and give the executive some enforcement discretion. But calling modern administrative regulations, with agencies that make laws and try people in front of executive-branch judges, an exercise of enforcement discretion is a reach.

See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d45/15c4f13933f50394a0a220...

> The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional,* and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution.