Congress does not have the constitutional authority to cede rule making to the executive branch. I understand how the process works, I'm saying it shouldn't work that way. Effectively Congress is writing legislation that gives unelected executive agencies the authority to write legislation. That's both unconstitutional and undemocratic. The rules we live by should be voted on, not dictated by an agency. With regulations you can affect significant change without any need for democratic consensus. That's a dangerous thing.
And Congress does have the constitutional backing to do it, that's why they do it. I don't know what Constitution you keep on rattling about, but the American Constitution isn't interpreted by you or me, it's interpreted by nine judges on a bench, who have said Congress can do it. Don't like the interpretation? Live with it. Your Constitution commands it.
Oh, right, because delegation of legislative duty is as pressing of a moral issue as slavery and discrimination was. :/ Here, Commodore, why don't you become Lincoln, and pass a Constitutional amendment to get this pressing moral issue dividing the nation fixed if you feel so strongly about it? Demonstrate how society has evolved to accept regulations as nothing but discriminatory, and spiteful in nature, and morally denigrating. have fun with 2008, LIBOR investigations and etc. In the meanwhile, stop uttering blatant falsehoods. Regulations are constitutionally backed, and don't you forget it.
There are three components of governing... Making the laws...Done by Congress. Judging the laws...Done by SCOTUS Executing the laws...Done by Executive. Each of those components have a HUGE number of internal rules and procedures, but this is exactly what the Executive is supposed to do, implement the laws provided based on the framework of the legislation written by Congress and judged by the SCOTUS.
Regulations aren't internal, they apply to all of us. Internal rules would be things that apply to how the government itself behaves, not how we must behave. When a government minister has the power to decide what will be covered by health insurance, without our representatives debating it or voting on it, that's a problem. And it's not democracy.
Debating Commodore about his perspectives is the same as debating hardcore fundamentalist Christians about their perspectives. He thinks his perspectives are rational, but that's because the manufacturers of his ideology have told him that the manufactured perspective they've given him is "rational." It's not rational. It's just as faith-based as any religion out there.
