U.S. Corporations Are Openly Trying to Destroy Core Public Institutions
vice.com
vice.com
If congress wants something regulated, they should pass a law and give guidance and the agency should have to meet the clear meaning of the law until its changed by congress. In general, a new president shouldn't affect how agencies implement the will of congress but chevron kinda implicitly allows this. There are lots of regulations that may be swept away if we do away with Chevron but I think it will make the system more accountable and force congress to do its job.
To gauge democracy, examine how power is distributed among the institutions, both within and outside of govt.
In democracies, there is substantial or complete independence between the branches of govt — legislative, judicial, and executive, and portions of the executive, and various societal organizations — industry, academy, religions, social groups, sport, etc.
Under authoritarianism, all of the branches of govt and the societal organizations are bent to the serve the ruling group.
This is obviously an attempt by Musk, et. al. on these govt agencies to either eliminate them, or ensure that their will is subject to the whims of these would-be oligarchs. In short, it's a power grab, attempting to take a step towards turning workers back into serfs.
You also need to view this from both sides. The more freedom of action the agencies have the more they are effectively tools of the president. When you like the president that may seem great, but you always need to look at government power though the lense of the worst person you can image having that power.
That said, if an agency to so XYZ is founded, it needs the authority to do its job.
If Congress cannot even muster the effort to precisely describe the job, it certainly cannot micromanage each job.
Requiring such, depending on how strict, would effectively gut the agencies ability to do anything.
As for having Congress decide every bit of administrative policy, we've been there. It resulted in Congress wasting its time playing cat-and-mouse games with monied interests. They'd pass a bill banning, say, a certain deceptive trade practice; the people doing that practice would maliciously comply with the law[1] and come up with a new way to do exactly the same thing; and the courts would run interference on legal challenges until Congress updated the law to clearly and unambiguously ban the workaround. Or the courts would squint really hard at antitrust laws and say "Oh, uh, funny story, Congress didn't mean to ban monopolies, they really meant to ban trade unions. Those jokers just don't know how to write laws."
Administrative rulemaking was Congress's way to short-circuit the courts ignoring clear legislative intent. If you think "do what I mean, not what I drafted" is a violation of separation-of-powers, I will counterargue that so is the entire concept of common law. In the US, higher courts don't just have the ability to overturn specific cases; their rulings also create precedent that lower courts are bound by. This is effectively a legislative power, being exercised by political appointees!
The worst president I can think of so far has been Donald Trump. I absolutely do not want him having power. However, binding administrative agencies' hands to Congress's whims will not fix that problem. Remember: this is a Congress that, by SCOTUS's own hand[2], has been turned into a political donation mill that occasionally moonlights as a legislative body. The cat-and-mouse game will run far slower with Congress being bribed by corporations to just conveniently forget to close those loopholes. And we don't even get an improvement on liberty for anyone else. There are plenty of ways in which the Presidency can absolutely roadkill you personally, without needing to invoke an administrative body with rulemaking authority.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
[1] See also: Apple's response to the Digital Markets Act
I don't think that's true at all, and I believe separation of powers is (to large degree) and Americanism.
I think most democracies lack or have very weak separation of powers, and are ruled under a principle of legislative supremacy.
That's pretty clear in the UK (where parliamentary supremacy is a bedrock principle of their unwritten constitution), and I believe in Napoleonic law countries there's no sense where a court can strike down a law as "unconstitutional," because I understand courts there aren't bound by precedent in the same way common law courts are.
Again, also notice this includes not only branches of govt, but how the societal institutions maintain separation, industry, press, academy, religion, social orgs, nonprofits, sports, etc.
I largely disagree. Congress did it's job in creating agencies and outlining their domain. I don't want a bunch of politicians creating regulation on drug approvals for instance, I want physicians and pharmacists doing that. I think the past few years have proven this, the supreme court, congress and executive fudging around with whether or not drugs are safe and efficacious has been a total shitshow.
Having professionals in their respective fields drive agencies is the only way you even come close to keeping up in the modern world. I cannot even imagine a world in which all agency policy shifts drastically every 2-4 years as different administrations come and go. That would absolutely wreck the US.
As for the CRA, there were previous ones defended under 14/15 and it was struck. The unique defense of the CRA is interstate commerce as expanded under wickard to somehow include basically all trade.
I think you're probably missing a word here (or maybe some commas..or maybe autocorrected). But it's related to the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But I do realize now from looking at your other comments, this is a 30 day old account in which all you do is spout BS white supremacist, conservative, and anti-workers right BS so I'm going to just assume you're paid to be a troll or maybe just another person who's personal choices have screwed them and decide to blame others rather than just addressing your own failings.
Have a good day, and maybe get some therapy.
And I know you won't get that, either.
If you're actually concerned about a clear and present case of Federal overreach, focus on the actual source of the precedent in what is, as I understand it, the ultimate source of greatly exaggerated Federal reach.
The Civil Rights Act is generally far less controversial in terms of adherence to the Constitutionally defined implementation process.
With the vile CRA gone Wickard will be less defensible for destruction.
There, fixed that for you.
The hat would be article one, section eight, clause three of the US Constiution which grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States".
The CRA exists because a bunch of shithead treason states hate the constitution's requirements that they treat people equally regardless of race. Prior to the CRA specifying that such actions had actual penalties these states routinely prevent PoC from equal employment, equal service, equal pay, and frequently the right to vote. Before you even get to the whole murdering PoC and people who support them and somehow never being able to find the culprits.
Look I get it that many people live in this delusional world where the constitution only applies if its beneficial to them, and the protections only apply if it protects them, but things like the CRA and the NLRB exist specifically to deal with those shitheads by saying "just because your state government is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-non-christians, anti-actual-people's rights, and is generally bigoted doesn't mean you can say those policies supersede the US constitution". These laws, regulations, and institutions all came into existence at the federal level, because of treason states refusing to just obey the actual US constitution, which definitionally supersedes any shitty beliefs those rundown BS states may have.
If your argument is "restricting interstate trade in response to violating the constitution" is unconstitutional, I wonder how you reconcile that with punishing people for violating any law? after all isn't incarcerating someone depriving them of their constitutional rights?
That aside, previous CRA under 14/15 were struck, it didn't stick until expansion of commerce under wickard.
what happened to that other one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218463
If Vice is hammering on the litigant rather than the contents of the case, I sort of suspect the answer is yes.
And a huge part of America is braying mad to tear down governance & institutions. Now that they have so many of their people in such high seats of power, a bullet from the blue could come and topple any institution or governance.
> “Contemporary fights about labor are also inherently fights about constitutional law—about the rights to which citizens and residents are entitled, about governmental powers and structure, and ultimately about how we constitute ourselves as a nation,” Andrias wrote.
What the article is doing however is mostly providing historical context for these cases and how they are potentially dangerous given the supreme court's recent change in philosophy.
At the end of the day, corporations and labor both see the writing on the wall. Immigration is not popular and younger generations in the US are shrinking, there's no replacement population. So theoretically labor should gain power and there is increased labor organization happening in the US. But, corporations are not going to sit back and let that happen. So we see attacks on all levels of government when it comes to labor protections. Hell, several states have already put children back to work. The new deal is fully under attack and I think a lot of the people cheering it on are going to be most hurt by it.
Neither of them are "core public institution". NLRB has probably destroyed more jobs that all recessions combines and might have hurt the poorest and most vulnerable population lot more. They have worked to spread the cancer of collective bargaining powers, coercive unions and other protections for their favourite people at the expense of american consumers.
> FTC
This should be considered unconstitutional. If you provide a service that is cheap you are "predatory", if you provide a service that is very expensive you are "price gauging" and if you are average your are "colluding".
FTC is an evil eye of sauron that is on every damn successful business.
I hope "trader joes" succeeds in putting a stake into hearts of these two vampires.
If you unsustainably provide a service for less than it costs you to undercut competition then yes it is predatory.
If you coordinate a standard price with your competitors then yes that's collusion.
If you overprice your service or good to extract a massive margin now that there's no competition (or the competition is also doing the same thing) or the consumer otherwise has no other choice then yes of course that's price gouging.
These really aren't that complicated of concepts.
I'll put it as simply as I can: the NLRB and FTC are there to prevent force and fraud, same as every other liberal institution. You just don't like it because you want your particular brand of coercion to be treated as a right.
The NLRB protects workers' freedom of association from capital's long-standing, multigenerational attempts to cancel[0] that freedom. The FTC protects the market from privatized attempts to impose price floors or ceilings. Large businesses wield power commensurate with governments and should be regulated proportionally to their ability to do government things.
Big business has spent over 50 years insulating themselves from market forces through regulatory capture, selective deregulation, and the complete dismantling of antitrust. Hiding your coercion behind the guise of helping the American consumer is unhelpful, because those consumers are also workers. You are beating up kids for lunch money with the promise that you might give some of it back.
[0] Cancel as in Twitter.