Election coming up
[1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...
The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it may not even be a matter that falls to the federal government at all.
Most employment law, for example, falls to the state in which the worker lives, and some have chosen to ban non-competes via legislation. This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat, even though I tend to agree that non-competes are more harmful than good in many situations.
What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?
The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress.
Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with.
Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?
Is it less democratic because unlike laws, there's an open comment period for the public to make their voice heard? (unlike laws or executive orders)
Is it less democratic because it's policy being implemented by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the policy and its effects, rather than by some blowhard trying to score culture war points on twitter than making a policy?
This is happening in an election year, so the office of the presidency is driving this for political reasons. I sincerely doubt you'd be comfortable having someone you disagree with politically wield the same powers in the same way.
My first question merely pointed out that the process that exists, with a public comment period etc, is in some ways more democratic than congress passing laws. That is - this is a place where the rulemaking is more inclusive of the public than some having some trash that got themselves elected passing laws on behalf of people they don't actually talk to or consult about those laws.
The second is actually a statement about how it's shockingly responsble for the selfish idiots that get themselves into congress to have somewhat knowledgable, focused people do the work instead of just randomly passing laws based on their twitter feed.
The end of the process initated by executive order in 2021 is happening this year, yes. I've seen people I like and dislike wield that power. Witha ll of them I've agreed with some of the policies they had and disagreed with others. I'm comfortable with it happening generally, but i wish congress would be a little more involved and representative of the people when they set up those powers and issue the directional laws that these people administer. That is not an issue with methodology though, just political opinion about the specific policies.
That's not what happens, though. Agency heads are political appointees who take their marching orders from the executive (president). They engage in poor-quality rule-making all the time when it's politically advantageous for the president and/or his party.
Coming from a country with a Westminster system where federal legislation is relatively easy to pass, I strongly believe it's a feature of the US system of government that it's a herculean task for congress to pass new laws and that the executive is very limited in its powers.
The more power that can be devolved to the state and local level, the better - there's no reason to think a small group of people in Washington are capable of making considered decisions on behalf of 330M+ Americans in the majority of circumstances, and that extends to the myriad of federal agencies engaged in the rule-making process.
It's also worth noting that many of the people who demand that Congress do these things instead of bureaucrats are saying that in bad faith; that is, they don't want it done at all and know Congress can't possibly come to an agreement on it because they're the same people funding the campaigns of representatives who go out of their way to sink the legislative process.
As for it being a feature, you're right - I think the vast majority of legislating should be done at the state and local level. This isn't a secret, it was covered in the Federalist Papers in the 18th century.
What's your argument in favor of federalizing all aspects of law in a large and heterogenous country? Why does the federal government need to force Texas to ban non-competes when Texas has decided not to do so but California has?
What if the next government decides to force California to un-ban non-competes with a new rule issued by Executive Order? Do you not see why this is an unworkable and brittle approach?
Well, they do it all the time. FCC, OSHA, EPA... Try taking the approach that you shouldn't have your FCC license (amateur radio, broadcasting, whatever) to the courts because these bureaucrats made up the whole thing. You won't get very far.
> What's your argument in favor of federalizing all aspects of law in a large and heterogenous country?
My argument is that no one actually believes in not federalizing things. Not unless it fits their agenda. See the Comstock Act, for example.
> Why does the federal government need to force Texas to ban non-competes when Texas has decided not to do so but California has?
They need to ban non-competes because they're horrifically abusive of workers and like most things, the corporate class keeps pushing until someone pushes back. Would you like that "someone" to be the FTC through a legal process, or an angry mob tearing people apart? Mobs don't particularly care much about "states' rights" or the writings of a bunch of slave owners who lived before the creation of germ theory, after all.
> What if the next government decides to force California to un-ban non-competes with a new rule issued by Executive Order? Do you not see why this is an unworkable and brittle approach?
What if the next Congress decides the opposite of the current one? What if a future SCOTUS bench decides to contradict a past ruling? What's your point?
Regardless of the winners of said election, expect a return to business as usual afterward.
You’re not paying very close attention if you can’t spot any substantive differences between the two sides.
I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office.
The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't do that as that'd keep them from getting cabinet positions in the future and Trump's admin will do it right away because it can both be sold as a referendum on the previous admin and would help them get future positions for the next republican president.
For trump, I doubt he'll do anything at the end of his term different from the beginning. I really don't think Trump cares about keeping republicans in office.
So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no business being elected for another 30 years.
I can tell where the hypocrisy starts and the eye roll begins.
Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump.
But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power.
Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does.
If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).