We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches and groups without actually legislating it, which gives politicians perfect cover and someone else to blame.
If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so.
Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in actually doing their job.
There is plenty of blame to go around... Congress is very much a problem but their problem normally stems from the creation of a MASSIVE administrative state so they do not actually have to pass laws they just pass a statement that says "X agency will make rules to go Y goal"
Well, at least in the US, Congress hasn't been legislating for a while now. They handed over that responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branch a long time ago so that they don't have to deal with unhappy voters because it's always someone else's fault.
Which is exactly what Congress refuses to do, because letting Caesar, I mean the President, decide things by fiat keeps them from owning the blame for bad legislation.
This is just one of many examples of congress delegating it's law making duty to the executive -- normally so it can avoid any responsibility for it's actions. If the policy is not popular they blame the executive, the policy is successful they point to their delegation of power.
Hopefully, we'll see congress take back the reigns more and if anything delegate things to the states and instead of the executive.
The common excuse is that the expertise lies in the executive so they should control the rules. This can be easily answered by allowing the executive to draft the rules, but to have congress involved whenever they're changed.
Blaming congress for this is an easy out, but doesn't stand up to real scrutiny. Lets not forget that the executive branch has a secret interpretation of the law, one that many in congress were unaware of, that allowed them to go well above and beyond anything actually authorized by congress.
Look, you can't both claim that the government is responsible for the behaviour of the executive agencies, while also claiming it's unaccountable for the behavior of the executive agencies.
Congress delegated some parts of rulemaking authority to them. It can do that. It has done that. Congress can always undelegate it, if it thinks that the agencies are doing a poor job. Or it can pass laws that modify their mandates.
Given that it doesn't do much of that, it seems to be pretty happy with the job they are doing. (You know who isn't happy? A bunch of unelected, unaccountable, partisan life-time appointees, who seem to be have a habit of legislating from the bench, ruling on hypothetical cases, or on straight-up fabricated facts...)
If you don't like a legislature that doesn't do anything, consider electing a legislature that actually wants to legislate (the current Congress ain't it.)
Yup. US system of passing laws through congress is now broken to such an extent that the only things that can pass unmolested are esoteric bills that (usually) shift money from the taxpayer to big corporate lobbying group in such a way that the common person can't (or isn't bothered enough) to understand. That's one of the reasons most of a President's power is expressed through executive orders directives to federal agencies selectively enforce or ignore laws passed by congress. That is also why passage of Obamacare will forever be remembered as a huge legislative accomplishment the likes of which will probably not be replicated again in our lifetimes.
And frankly, I think Congress should stop trying to dodge responsibility by letting the executive stretch its authority to take care of problems Congress won't.
Is it though? I totally support the idea of the action, but it really feels like it should have come from congress. They are supposed to be the law makers. It feels like everytime congress fails, and we have to resort to executive actions to do every day legislation more power is being ceded to the executive branch.
Honestly, the legislative branch can take most of the power anytime it wants. The Supreme Court interprets laws when they are vague, or when they are unconstitutional. It is loathe to consider things unconstitutional when they are plainly constitutional. But the deep division in American politics has resulted in a legislature that is almost incapable of considering major legislation that has lasting impact on Americans, much less passing it. They can certify a stamp or name a post office anytime, but something with as many moving parts as Obamacare was nearly a decade in the making and barely lurched over the finish line as a crude simulacrum of the original plan.
There's a reason Congress tends to enjoy a low-teens approval rating on aggregate (all Americans continue to vote the same legislators back into office year after year after year).
Well, Congress is only able to abdicate their responsibility because we have departed from our "Constitutional design." All 3 branches now write law, not to mention other unelected government agencies, so Congress is now free to avoid doing their job and point the finger at someone else instead.
I think Congress fails to properly police and regulate itself. I'm not sure what the answer is to that problem, but an unaddressed fundamental flaw of the Congressional system to me is that there is no incentive for them to even remotely approach changes that affect Congresspeople.
One cannot expect those that benefit from X to write laws restricting X. It's why money will never be out of politics. There will never be enough people in Congress to sacrificially agree to such an idea.
If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so.
Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in actually doing their job.
reply