So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?
Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges.
At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.
Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice.
That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives.
I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy.
And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state.
Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).
You said that each state has equal importance to the union, right? So what would you say if California had a state vote and decided to split into 5 states. There would be states for the LA, Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and a 5th state for all the other areas. California would gain 8 new senators just by dividing its boundaries, and it would probably all be the same political party.
Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation?
See the problem here? This assignment of senators is arbitrary and has nothing to do with representing states. States aren’t people.
This system isn’t really designed with the incentives or guard rails to do what you say it does. There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined.
Case in point: JD Vance became a senator with zero public service experience. He has no longstanding relationship with state congresspeople in Ohio.
The founders made the constitution in a time before our advanced financial and media landscape. It was also conceived at a time when states were barely even agreeing to be united into a single country. It was also made at a time before mass urbanization.
With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states. Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states.
It’s not even legally allowed for a state to secede. So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people?
I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes.
I would say that the best thing we could do is expand the House of Representatives to around 2,000 representatives and then eliminate the senate entirely. Or, perhaps, turn the senate into a subcommittee of more tenured representatives elected by members of the House of Representatives.
>Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation?
So there's nothing stopping anyone from trying this, but admission into the Union requires the other States in the Union + POTUS to agree with you. And, I'd imagine if a coalition of states finds California splitting into 5 parts to be disadvantageous to the balance of power within the Union, they'd block it immediately.
We can see historical examples of this: the slow-rolling crisis of the mid 19th century of the expansion of states in the western territories. We can see modern examples of this: D.C and Puerto Rico not being granted statehood.
>There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined.
I agree with you on this, and also, historically this was proven to be the case and why the 17th was ratified. And, I guess in a lot of ways, a popular election of the senator by the state's populace is just "state government appoints the senator" without the extra steps in-between.
But if we take this "popular election is just the old system without the extra steps" part, then:
>With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states.
Couldn't it be said that it franchises [sic?] the popular vote of smaller states to protect them against larger states passing laws that directly benefit them?
>Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states.
Yes, but how do we ensure that larger states don't start passing laws that directly take advantage of the smaller ones?
>So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people?
>I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes.
So this, I think, is purely a matter of political philosophy. The founders were seriously afraid of mob rule. They also saw statehood and state-identity as some sort of pseudo-ethnic identity. Are the state boundaries maybe a bit arbitrary? Perhaps in the very squarish mid-western states but the original 13 saw their state boundaries as being steeped in history and tradition. I think there is something else to be said about these identities becoming fluid at the borders of the states, central power in concentrated economic/population zones radiating outwards and coinciding with the strength of state-ethnic identity, etc. etc. More Holy Roman Empire than United Kingdom.
So I think perhaps this increasing call for national popular votes of the president, abolishment of the Senate, questioning statehood in general points to an increasing shift away from the idea that we're citizens of the USA as a function of being a "Virginian" or a "New Yorker" or a "Californian" (a slow, long rolling processes started in 1861) Mixed with increasing frustrations about larger states and metro areas feeling they're not properly represented.
And, forgive me, but I don't know if this sentiment is entirely correct. So I reserve my skepticism for switching to unicameral systems, to nationally elected POTUSes, to turning States into Provinces. Until I am convinced otherwise.
I think the fundamental question we are debating is this: at what threshold does protecting minority voices and interests look more like minority rule denying the majority opinion than the needs of minority interests being protected? At what threshold does the desire to stop mob rule become the silencing of the common person?
And really, there's a good argument that’s where we are at today. The minority opinion controls a lot of national policy.
For example, the Supreme Court confirmed by the small state-biased senate and a president who lost the popular vote overturned Roe v Wade. Meanwhile, 57% of Americans disagree with the ruling and that number is 62% among women (Pew Research).
Congress has an extremely poor record of passing laws that people want and instead pass laws that their skewed constituency supports. The majority of Americans support free-tuition college, universal healthcare, and better gun control, but Congress has made little progress on those issues.
The founders weren’t abolishing monarchy to hand over power to the common person. The founders envisioned a republic where male property owners were allowed to vote and even then it was quite indirect. The founders owned slaves. They replaced monarchy with aristocracy, which isn’t all that helpful to the common person. That legacy lives on in the design of their system.
The US only got better after making a whole lot of changes: abolishing slavery, guaranteeing civil rights, giving women the right to vote, etc. The USA arguably wasn’t even something that could be considered a democracy until the second half of the 20th century. And it still has a long way to go.
If we truly believe that one person is equal to one person, how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live? Just because we don't want urban areas to have the most power? I cna't figure out why we don't we want that, or why we don't want that more than we don't want rural voices to overpower urban ones. By demographic reality those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.
An entire district larger than the state of Wyoming has no voting representatives in the Senate.
I guess here is an even more fundamental question: What is the purpose of the Federal Government, and what is the purpose of our representation within that government?
I think answers to those questions illuminate quite clearly how you will end up feeling about urban vs rural, majority rule vs minority protection, Senators, SCOTUS, etc. etc.
>those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.
But they are heard? Democrats (largely associated with urban areas) control 49% of the House of Representatives. Until 2 years ago they had ~51%. And they've had a couple of super majorities. And each Representative represents the same number of people.
But voters aren't fungible. Voters' interests aren't fungible. It would be preposterous for a resident of Chicago to show up to a school board meeting in Seattle and make any sort of demands.
>how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live?
The reality is that our environment, upbringing, and experiences lead to a particular mix of interests and those interests tend to get geographically clustered. Those interests also have real, economic ramifications to everyone's daily lives. We don't even all speak the same kind of English!
Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I still hold a lot of skepticism towards drastic changes to a system that can wield immense power and control over the world.
And for what it's worth, I could be very wrong in my views. The beauty of a democracy is that with enough votes and political action, those who think I am wrong can move to shape the USA into their vision if they win enough power in Government. And the great strength of the USA is that 1) I can disagree with the end result freely and 2) if I find it so important to my daily life, the well-being of my posterity, and the common-good of all, I can take action to find like minded individuals to convince people of our view and make real political outcomes. All in a peaceful manner! All protected by the First Amendment! (for it takes freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion to accomplish these two things).
I think we have a pretty good thing going here if the above two remain true in our government.
US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments.
Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.
Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified.
I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.
>If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified.
You can be made whole to the best extent humanly possible.
Which is to say, no. No matter how much money you might win, you can't be made whole for the time and human capital wasted on fending off Executive Branch abuse.
The ideal timeline is to stop the abuse before it has taken root, bloomed, and spread its hay fever all over the place.
Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best.
Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best.
It’s not much worse than the decision of whatever-party-got-to-appoint-a-judge-at-the-right-time. Seriously, considering the constant stream of bonkers ideological decision in various courts, including federal, who decide to ignore both law and precedent when it suits them, your faith seems to be misplaced. Rule of law works when you have a working judiciary. Unfortunately, that branch of the American government is not really in a much better state than the two others.
> Laws are more durable and can be counted on.
Common law is a gentleman’s agreement that courts will follow precedent. It broke down recently in several spectacular occasions, at which point no, laws cannot be counted on.
> Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
That’s an argument for an independent civil service, not for the end of agencies. A change in government should not mean a collapse of the administrative state or wide swings on technical policies. It’s not magic, both the UK and the US (among many others, but these two are easier to discuss from English sources) used to do it.
You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best."
How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility.
Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
I agree but I'd rather have either one than nothing.
I'd in general rather have agencies invent rules in ways that help Americans instead of judges inventing interpretations in ways that help corporations.
The courts should have the power to issue injunctions against an agency's policies but the judge shopping should not be allowed.
I mean, insofar as it wasn't attacking a specific person, yes. But it's a generalized attack on an institution rather than that institution's legal argument. Would you accept ad cortem?
Reminder to everyone else, the President nominates agency heads, and the Senate confirms them
There are some agencies I don’t want democrats running, and some agencies I don’t want republicans running. There are many of us that vote based on some agency terms ending, weighed against other things.
Not at all! I'd prefer that the power of the executive be stripped down to the point where neither party can accomplish any of their campaign promises without passing laws in Congress.
Both parties have pivoted their entire strategy towards making presidential campaign promises, delivering them as temporary administrative rules (i.e. this from the Democrats, immigration law from the Republicans), and then frantically rallying their base to defend those rules against the possibility that they get upended in the next presidential election. It's chaos.
Neuter the executive branch and the game is up: no promises get delivered on and therefore no world-ending stakes can be played up in the presidential election cycle. My hope would be that with the game ended Congress goes back to actually governing and compromising to deliver something tangible and durable to their bases.
This is why I think the US's Presidential system is fatally flawed, and should be abolished in favor of a parliamentary system, similar to those in the two countries that the US helped set up such systems: Germany and Japan.
Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP).
And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies) and manage his party (politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion).
All the while the Japanese electorate's sentiment is "o rly" because nobody couldn't care less who becomes the new LDP leader and thus next Japanese Prime Minister because nothing will really change. I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either.
I frankly much prefer the American shithouse, at least it's fun and even makes sense (yes, including the Electoral College) once you actually study it.
I don't see any government shutdowns in Japan. In fact, life here is generally quite peaceful and stress-free, unlike the hell that is life in the US these days.
>(Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies)
Kishida has been fine; you can't change a stagnant economy in a few years, and a PM's power is limited.
>politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion).
Tax evasion by parliament members isn't great, but US congresspeople aren't any better: just look at Bob Menendez. No place has perfect politicians.
>I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either.
So what? Most Americans have no clue how their own government works either.
Japanese could certainly stand to improve their civics knowledge and become a little more politically active, but it's nothing like the shitshow that is US politics these days. It was actually nice seeing how the assassination of former PM Abe actually resulted in real positive change, with the government cracking down on Moonie cult affiliation by many politicians; that would never happen in America.
Considering we've gone through like half a dozen shut downs if not more and the sky didn't come crashing down, I say shut 'er down more. We'll all save money and a lot of misery.
>In fact, life here is generally quite peaceful and stress-free,
Quite a lot of Japanese hate how peaceful life is in Japan because the flipside is there's nothing to look forward to.
I'm sure there's a healthy serving of "grass greener on other side" there, but I don't disagree with the assessment. Low risk means low return.
>Kishida has been fine
Kishida is decidedly not fine, he is enjoying utterly abysmal approval ratings and he was more or less forced out of running for the party leadership and Prime Ministry this party election cycle because of how inept he was.
He speaks a lot of fancy words, but he didn't actually do much of anything as a leader. Kind of like Obama in that sense.
>Tax evasion by parliament members isn't great, but US congresspeople aren't any better: just look at Bob Menendez. No place has perfect politicians.
All of them basically got slapped with temporary suspensions from political activity from their party. Fines? Nope. Prison time? Nope. Amending the law to crack down on this behaviour? Pedantically yes, nothing changed in practice.
Incidentally, the LDP is projected to lose seats in the next general election and maybe even lose majority and thus the government because of how utterly worthless they and the Japanese political scene at-large is.
>So what? Most Americans have no clue how their own government works either.
The difference is Japanese pride themselves on being educated, and most of them can't tell you how Parliament is elected because of how innane it is.
If you don't believe me, you don't have to because the numbers speak for themselves: Japanese voter turnouts have been utterly abysmal, and this is after they reduced voting age from 20 (age of maturity) to 18 and campaigned to increase teaching civics in schools. The high school senior kids couldn't care less, let alone the adults, because they knew voting is a waste of time.
>It was actually nice seeing how the assassination of former PM Abe actually resulted in real positive change
The fact that it took violence of the highest order to effect the bare minimum of change (those cultliticians dragged their feet in disavowing, cult monies are monies) is not a good thing for democracy.
...a federal judge is a rule by expert. That's the whole point: you have to pass the bar and are insulated from feedback for life. The alternative, bureaucratic rule, is subject to democratic feedback: if people don't like it, they can vote to change it.
Rule by expert sounds good until you realize that by insulating invasive systems from election cycles, you end up with a permanent opposition and a disillusioned populace who can't trace a causal path from their vote to meaningful change in their live.
> if people don't like it, they can vote to change it.
Correction: if the people don't like the entire collection of administrative rules, foreign policy, and general vibes put forward by a single person (the President) they can vote to change that single person. They don't get a say on the rules themselves.
Laws passed case by case by a diverse governing body elected to represent smaller groups of people are more democratic than laws penned by bureaucrats who are accountable to a single person whose election hinges on the marginal vote tallies in a half dozen states.
IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives.
Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks.
The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus.
The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling.
The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.
I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job.
Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.
If the task at hand is to through a list 125 possible additives to baby food and ban the harmful ones, I would rather trust administrative state than congressmen, at least they aren’t going to be sellouts. Much of the job is boring, not glorious and not that complicated.
Also, $800 million is not an impressive amount of money .Compare to cost of political mistakes
The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies.
I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it.
In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat.
I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way.
It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office
Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center.
For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees.
The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will.
The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country.
By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
> The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will.
Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems.
First, what does the regulator think the law says.
Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done.
Third, what does the law actually say.
The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims.
An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading.
Operation Choke Point was an example of a failure but it’s surrounded many successes.
You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg).
The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.
> Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading.
> You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg).
What enforcement efforts do you believe help you? Specifics are helpful.
> The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.
So first: the FTC under Lina Khan has not been performing well, and notably lost their suits. Second, it's the DOJ suing Ticketmaster, and the DOJ is actually won their Google suit, and seems to be poised to win against Ticketmaster and RealPage, which I'm rooting for.
And to address your points regarding the judicial branch: this is why laws are so important. People tend to treat elections as red vs blue, but the reality is that depending upon administrative agencies to legislate a contributing factor to what allows such tribalism to exist at all: a perception that progress on "issues", however minor, is permanent outside the bounds of congress can be made. To change the laws of the country, it must come from the seat of power: congress.
> if Trump gets re-elected [...] the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
Whuh? I don't even—would the quarters in your pocket happen to depict George Washington with a pointed goatee?
On mine he's clean-shaven, from a timeline where "the left" has been the side consistently arguing for some very important limits on executive power, regardless of whether "their" candidate entered the office later, such as:
* Remember all those years of "Unitary Executive Theory" under the Bush administration, and how it was opposed and kept getting opposed?
* Everything about the Constitution-free-zone at Guantanamo, both its formation and failed executive attempts to dissolve it?
* The thing about the Emoluments clause, and whether Presidents can solicit and accept bribes?
* The thing about whether Presidents can self-pardon?
* The Supreme Court case about whether Presidents have blanket immunity in office which would allow them to order the assassination of their rivals?
Those should ring a tintinnabulation of bells, even before other less-legalistic notes, such as consistent belief that "President For Life" and praising foreign dictators for having dictatorial power are taboo.
If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.
That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.
> If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise.
Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government.
> Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.
Why not?
Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate."
We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
>Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws.
Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either.
In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible.
If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely.
>The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive.
The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts.
The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law.
Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.
Yes I’m fine with the judiciary doing its job. I’m not fine with the executive exceeding their bounds. I’m also not fine with the extremely common regulatory capture of the bureaucrats that have “experts” fall in to cushy jobs if they use their expertise correctly.
