Hacker News Reader

Comment by caseysoftware | Hacker News Reader

Are there provisions in the Constitution for one Branch to delegate its powers to another?

There’s no rule against it, and it’s what Congress has done, so it’s what’s happening.

Sure there is: Article I, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Anything short of "all" contradicts that.

Now you need to find somewhere that says "Oh, btw.. we didn't mean 'All' but really 'some' because Congress might give some legislative powers to other branches."

That doesn't seen like a reasonable interpretation. The power is vested in Congress, so they can use it. Delegating authority to an agent is not exactly novel and it definitely doesn't somehow mean that Congress no longer has that power.

So if I give you complete authority to design and implement a new exommerce system, it means you must do it single-handedly with no delegation to anyone?

This “anything not expressly allowed must be forbidden” is the exact opposite of how US law works.

> This “anything not expressly allowed must be forbidden” is the exact opposite of how US law works.

With regards to the Constitution, the 10th Amendment would disagree.

Do you understand the implication of the answer to that question being "No, and it cannot delegate those powers"?

Congress would have to vote on giving approval for each new drug, not the FDA's bureaucrats.

Congress would have to vote on each individual edge case for welfare programs (SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid, etc), not their respective agencies.

Congress would have to vote on which individual people get Pell grants, how much, and how much their parents are expected to contribute to their university schooling, not the Department of Education.

Congress would have to vote to approve contracts for every federal agency.

The federal government would not function without some degree of delegation.

Legislative powers, not all powers.

You don't change the law every time a new drug gets approved, you grant it certification (the framework of which is based in existing legislation). You'd only need Congress to get involved if you wanted to change the approval process itself

The constitution arguably wasn't designed for a government that did much of what it's doing. Shouldn't be hard to pass an amendment to legalize it if it's that necessary right? We needed an amendment just to federally ban booze for God's sake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com