←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.244s | source
Show context
paxys ◴[] No.40214410[source]
On one hand I'm very happy with all the recent policy changes coming down from different federal agencies, but on the other there's a very high likelihood that they will all be reversed a few months from now if/when a new administration takes over. That is always the downside of executive rule. With Congress unwilling/incapable of acting though I guess this is the best we'll get.
replies(5): >>40214437 #>>40214495 #>>40214631 #>>40214636 #>>40215141 #
sanderjd ◴[] No.40214631[source]
This kind of rule should be made by an executive agency, empowered by a congressional delegation of that rule-making power to that agency.

This is just the same principle as private organization boards of directors delegating the minutia of running the organization to the executives and their teams. If you think it would be madness for hiring decisions on individual contributors to be made by board votes, then you should support the delegation of rule-making authority to executive agencies.

Yes, it means that changing the executive might change the rules. Congress remains free to overrule the agencies by passing further legislation, if they so desire. And voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around, if they want to see different rules. These are all features, not bugs.

There is certainly value in stability and predictability, but there is even more value in having an executive branch of government that is empowered to make decisions quickly and a short feedback loop between the public and the government.

replies(3): >>40214733 #>>40215192 #>>40216248 #
rascul ◴[] No.40215192[source]
> voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around

Note that there are only either 538 or 100 voters, depending on which position in the executive branch.

replies(2): >>40216061 #>>40222287 #
1. hughesjj ◴[] No.40216061[source]
Or 9 voters

Or, if someone gets his way, just 1