Hacker News Reader

Comment by kemayo | Hacker News Reader

That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers.

We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations.

(Granted, by the same logic, they could presumably start adding some "these rules should be interpreted according to the agency's definitions" boilerplate to new laws, if they really want that.)

View on HN

> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers.

It's not. There's long standing precedent, since well before Chevron, that Congress does not have unlimited ability to delegate its powers. E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928).

And this makes sense, because Congress is not a coherent unified agent. It's a messy institutions for distilling the wishes of the people.

> E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928).

If you want to talk about precedent, 1825:

> It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.

* https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html

Right, Congress can delegate details and implementation, but it can’t delegate basic legislation. That’s obviously a burry boundary, but it’s clear they can’t abdicate their powers in general.

> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers

Yeah, that's a "no." Taking away power from voters and handing it to unelected bureaucrats is specifically what the Constitution is meant to protect against.

All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, constitutionally. That power cannot be delegated to anyone, precisely because it would result in tyranny and disenfranchisement of voters (i.e. "us").

The only way to enable this is to amend the Constitution, which, if that's what voters want, they can do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com