So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this.
If they continue down this path it will be chaos.
Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it in my lifetime they leave that campaign up to the president. Congress is invested with the sole power to regulate our money when is the last time you've seen them do anything except throw up bloated budgets? They have completely advocated that power to the Federal reserve of which they exercise zero oversight of and apparently leave it to the president who also lets it run autonomously.
So what you call chaos is reconnecting the actual responsibilities of our elected representatives with their duties. I for one would very much enjoy seeing my elected representative actually doing their constitutional duties instead of pitting citizen that one another's throat in order to get reelected again.
there's definitely a gap between regulatory officials making regulations and legislature codifying the details. This is where appointing heads of those departments is supposed to come to bear.
It's a mess, but the answer isn't to let lobbyists and special interests burn the house down.
have you met any congress personnel? "dedicated", "idealistic", and/or "thoughtful" apply to some of them.
How many regulatory bodies are there that need rules passed? I can think of the FAA, FTC, EPA, FDA, USDA, and the NRC just off the top of my head. A quick google search shows there are 19 of these rule making agencies. Even with a wide distribution of rule making authority, these agencies struggle to keep up with our rapidly evolving world.
Forcing congress to hear and make a decision on every single regulation these agencies propose would be a bottleneck that brings this country to it's knees.
Removing ~3 weeks vacation gets you down to 245. Eleven federal holidays? 234.
200 days/year sounds like an almost full-time job?
Also, most sessions only run a few hours, and many more are pro forms, where the minimum quorum show up (I think this is something like 15 or 20), open the session and then immediately close it.
Sure, Congress is in session for about 200 days, and even when it is the elected officials aren't typically on the floor for the full day. But that doesn't mean that when they aren't on the floor they aren't necessarily working. They could be meeting with constituents, with their staff, reading bills, going to committee meetings, just meeting with other reps/senators etc.
You make it sound like they don't do anything.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
So due to the ignorance and corruption among conservative lawmakers regarding climate change and carbon emissions, congress has been in an ideological deadlock on the issue of climate initiatives. The EPA existing somewhat independent of that framework was a benefit.
Because then you're left with who is better convincing uninformed people; the experts, or paid lobbyists.
2. Politicians, per definition, are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Many constituents disagree with experts (climate change, for example). QED, there is little motivation for politicians to listen or follow the advice of experts, especially if an expert's conclusion is not popular.
They can and should take advice but the whole point of democracy is that the policymakers are democratically accountable.
Yes, that's what the executive branch is for. That's how our government and basically every government in the history of the world has worked.
> When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue?
Literally every campaign in my life that I've had any exposure to. Campaigning on real issues is not hard, the problem is getting into Congress and then being unwilling or unable to follow through.
From the final paragraph of the opinion:
"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
So it seems that Congress can still give the EPA a more clear delegation that they have this power.
> Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the authority it claims.
The reasoning for this is that:
> We presume that “Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies
Darn, my interpretation is shown to be naïve by someone who actually has the specific relevant experience!
Joking aside, thanks for your comment.
> it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers.