The SEC is not part of the executive branch. It is an independent agency. While it is also not part of the legislative branch, the legislative branch is the one that effectively controls it.
> The SEC is not part of the executive branch.
> It is an independent agency
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
Not according to the government, and they're the horse's mouth on this.
> SEC commissioners are nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the senate
This is correct, but not really to the point.
> Not according to the government, and they're the horse's mouth on this.
I'm guessing that you are confused about the phrase "independent agency". Or possibly you're remembering cases like Lucia v. SEC where certain SEC staff were (unsuccessfully) challenged as not conforming with the Article II appointments clause. The insulation of these sort of agencies from direct presidential oversight continues to be a source of debate in conservative legal circles, but where these agencies sit in the constitutional order is not remotely controversial. They're not part of the judiciary and they're not part of Congress so they can only be part of the executive.
> The executive branch also includes executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.
> The SEC is an independent federal agency
QED.
More to the point, congress lacks the ability under the constitution to create government structures outside the three branches. The language establishing the SEC makes very clear that its structure conforms with how Article II defines the executive branch:
> There is hereby established a Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) to be composed of five commissioners to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
> he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
The SEC is established and appropriated by congress, staffed by people who receive government paychecks, led by presidential appointees, etc etc. I'd be interested to know whether you think it's either
- not part of the US government
- part of a different branch
- part of the US government outside a branch that the constitution specifiesThe legislative branch can demand particular action from the SEC, albeit indirectly, by altering, passing, or revoking the laws that the SEC is tasked with enforcing.
"Independent agencies exist outside of the federal executive branch. More specifically, the term is used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."
There should just be a letter of the law , analytical meaning branch of government.
> There should just be a letter of the law , analytical meaning branch of government.
I don't think that's a thing that is possible. You can't write laws to cover every possible case, and writing them to be "self-interpreting" would be an extraordinarily difficult thing. Interpretation will always be required.
> The fact that the sec let Coinbase last this long is proof the system is over complicated and cannot be maintained efficiently.
There are numerous other possible reasons it took this long for the SEC to take action, other than the system being overly complicated or inefficient (lack of workers, bigger fish to fry [prioritization], the evolution of Coinbase into less of a commodities trader and more of a securities trader). Complications and inefficiencies usually require additional time and effort, but additional time and effort is not an absolute indication that something is complicated or inefficient.
I disagree with this assessment, but reasonable people can hold differing opinions on this.
Is it reasonable to have them be completely unambiguous in every circumstances? No.
Is it reasonable to have them be unambiguous in the vast majority of circumstances? Yes.
People who push that kind of system know this, and want the system to be hamstrung by exactly that situation. They want a system that can only outlaw their new, explicitly harmful scheme after an entire game of politics in congress, such that they could prevent something becoming law by encouraging the already bad stonewalling in congress. They want government agencies to be so bound up by poorly written law that they cannot administrate at all.
We both have to work in reality.
This is called "a court".
(There is a particular phrase for "the law is unclear so I'm going to sue the regulator in advance to determine if something is legal", but I've forgotten it. It's linked to judicial review)