Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymouse008 | Hacker News Reader

Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy

View on HN

No, Chevron deference breeds sanity. it would be insane to think that every little detail of complex regulatory structure must be outlined specifically in legislation in order for it to be valid. For example, legislation gives the EPA the power to regulate waterways. Chevron deference allows the EPA to use its expertise to write rules that say you can't dump benzine into the river. Without Chevron deference, someone who wants to dump benzine in the river could challenge the EPA saying that the law doesn't specifically say you can't dump benzine in the river. Imagine relying on our elected officials to come up with a list of what is and isn't considered toxic.

Regulations and regulators existed before 1984 when the case was argued. In my opinion, it's a good idea to curtail the power of government whenever possible. I'd rather Congress specify in a bill/law that a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed rather than blindly hoping regulators know what they are doing.

Curtailing the power of government means upholding the Chevron Deference, obviously.

If every little thing now becomes an open question of law, we exist in a vacuum of power where courts arbitrarily decide all sorts of things, giving massive amounts of power to the government.

Uncertainty breeds timidness. In order for people to have freedom to act, they need to know in advance what is legal and what is not.

Chevron was ruled in 1984 but it was a codification of principles that had already been in practice. It was a standard Supreme Court ruling, a formalization of precedent. After all, some degree of deference to executive interpretation is required, because it's impossible to write truly unambiguous law in any regular language.

> a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed

This is part of the design of regulatory agencies. Rulings like this come after an extensive process of consultation and public comment.

The private sector has demonstrated a thousand times over that they're bad-faith actors.

The government is also just as much bad actors whenever [insert whatever side you are opposed to] is in power.

They should make recommendations, and then before anything goes into effect, these recommendations must be passed into law (Congress passes bill, President signs it).

They could bundle these up regularly.

Why is that better than the current system?

I agree with your post. If you step back, can there be any highly developed countries that do not have the equivalent of the Chevron Deference? It seems impossible. Else, parliament would spend all of its time updating laws to add new corner cases that industry/people exploit. It would be very inefficient.

To be very specific: For each new chemical discovered or manuf'd, environmental protection laws would need to be amended by parliament. It is madness to think about.

>Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy

It would be literally impossible for congress to rule on every nuanced thing that Chevron allows agencies to do. Saying "congress should take care of it" shows either an intentional disregard for the roles agencies and their experts play, or a complete misunderstanding of the power it grants to federal agencies.

"It breeds tyranny" is absolutely ridiculous. When agencies rule in a manner people find unjust, they sue and win or lose in a court of law based on the content of the policy. It also gives congress a chance to rule on "big ticket" things that do need addressing without causing an absolute standstill having to rule on something as mundane as what the legal weight and length limit should be each season for catching a salmon from federal land in Montana.

It's by design. Legislators aren't and can't be competent regulators, and they know this.

Congress can't even handle managing fiscal policy sanely, and that's the one job they can't delegate.

look no further than the recent border bill that got the "no not like that, it wasn't supposed to work". Now they have to answer for it in november, a major piece of legislation in their favor and they left it on the floor because the maniac running the party has hurt feelings on not being included.

From a practical point of view, it's hard to say whether Congress would make better or worse decisions, and it's probably good that the government can make decisions about new technologies while Congress is mostly dysfunctional.

Maybe the thing that guards against tyranny is that Congress can override them (by passing a law) if regulators screw up badly enough?

At least, in theory.

Just like, in theory, the people could elect a better Congress.

Congress did act. They passed the TCPA in 1991 knowing full well that Chevron deference would allow the FCC to tweak their interpretation of the law as facts change. Congress doesn't want to have to micromanage things like this. If they did they would write the laws in a way that prevents situations where Chevron comes into play. And anyway, getting rid of Chevron would transfer the agencies powers to the courts, not congress.

The language of the bill here, "artificial or prerecorded voice" isn't even ambiguous to a normal person. An AI agent's voice is undeniably "artificial". It'd be a much bigger stretch for the FCC to interpret it otherwise!

Saying "Congress should" is basically abdicating solving the problem

Have you listened to our congresspeople? Nothing they do or say suggests to me that they have the capabilities to legislate effectively on technical matters, be they AI, Pollution or Food Safety.

We have departments that have traditionally been staffed with SMEs to make these rulings and decisions on behalf of congress, who legislates their existence and budget.

With some sarcasm and much trepidation, I would submit that lobbyists would be more than happy to write the laws that their congresspeople will sign into law, ending the due diligence and oversight of qualified, established government departments. (I know they do this now, but think of how much worse it could be!)

I completely agree with this viewpoint, but what makes you think that congresspeople are not lobbyists or are somehow less beholden to those who would engage in lobbying?

In other words, why would an agency be more persuadable than congress?

Looks like someone doesn't give a shit about shared resources or tragedies of the commons, and wants to do away with important regulation...

Our country is falling apart because of the current level of congressional ineptitude. One party refuses to support important legislation they specifically asked for because it may give the opposition party a positive news article.

Wishing the Congress had to study and pass legislation for all enforcement and regulation of society is tantamount to accelerationism.

The border bill was not what the GOP was asking for. It was a compromise and not enough of one to get the deal done with the most fringe of that party.

We are a divided house.

It is quite literally what the GOP asked for not even 12 weeks ago (Dec 6, 2023):

> Republicans on Wednesday blocked an emergency spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, demanding strict new border restrictions in exchange and severely jeopardizing President Biden’s push to replenish the war chests of American allies before the end of the year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/politics/senate-ukrain...

The Democrats said okay. Senators Sinema, Lankford (literally the 2nd most conservative senator according to his own congressional page), and Murphy spent the last couple months negotiating a new bill.

Trump then tanked it saying it would help Biden:

> Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he wants to be held responsible for blocking a bipartisan border security bill in the works in the Senate as President Biden seeks emergency authority to rein in a record surge of unauthorized border crossings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-bor...

Now the GOP house refuses to bring the bill to the floor:

> House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson declared it "dead on arrival" if it reaches his chamber.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal...

We were a divided government when McConnell was Senate majority leader and Pelosi was House majority leader and still able to pass legislation.

What we have now is a House run by clowns.

See also the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform debacle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo...

Congress can’t reasonably be expected to rule on everything, nor are they equipped with the expertise to do so.

there is simply no way for congress to enact every regulation. This is all a power grab for corporations bankrolling republican judges and congress critters to be able to ignore any regulations they want in order to make a few more bucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com