Comment by yummypaint
8 months ago
Yes, it's about attacking the means by which we collectively hold bad actors in check. Also other countries absolutely do delegate regulatory minutae to experts. If we can delegate law making to elected representatives, we can do the same for regulations to ensure they do what is intended.
No, it is about decent lawmaking. Nothing stops Congress from delegating regulation-making powers to agencies. Chevron isn't about that. Chevron didn't involve any delegation of anything.
Chevron is about the statute saying something vague like "a term in a consumer credit contract is void if it is oppressive" and then the effective definition of the word "oppressive" being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies at their whim with the courts being powerless to intervene. That is contrary to the rule of law. If there is a vagueness, that should be filled by a court supplying an interpretation and that precedent is then established. Law should be stable and predictable.
Remember the original Chevron case was based on the EPA changing its interpretation of "source" of air pollution under the Clean Air Act 1963 to make it much narrower. There was no statutory power for it to do so. Nothing in the Act authorised it. It unilaterally changed its interpretation of the law, and the Court said "that is fine, it is ambiguous, you decide what the law is and as long as it is a reasonable interpretation that is fine". Nothing to stop them turning around the next day and changing their interpretation again.
> being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies at their whim with the courts being powerless to intervene.
This isn't accurate though. You're arguing these things could literally change day to day, but there were established procedures for rule changes. Those procedures required posting reasons for the change, a notice published in the register, the chance for people to comment on the change, etc. When regulations changed without notice and without any reason given they got blocked from making the change.
See the debates around net neutrality and FCC decisions. Took a lot of notices, a lot of back and forth, etc. They couldn't just arbitrarily change the rules from one day to the next.
> Nothing to stop them turning around the next day and changing their interpretation again.
Why describes mostly every law enacted by a parliament? They clearly have that power to change the laws they enacted at any time.
So where is the problem if parliament delegates this power to some executive entity?
Now, if delegation is not clearly defined, this is another issue I can understand. And I am not interested enough in the minutia of US legislation to have an opinion on that.
> Why describes mostly every law enacted by a parliament? They clearly have that power to change the laws they enacted at any time.
They don't have the power to reinterpret their laws. They can repeal laws and pass new laws, but interpretation is up to the courts, if they don't like the interpretation the court gives to a law then their recourse is to pass a new law.
> So where is the problem if parliament delegates this power to some executive entity?
The problem is firstly that the executive isn't supposed to have the power to make or repeal laws, "delegating" it to them breaks the separation of powers, and secondly allowing a law to be "reinterpreted" rather than rewritten breaks the whole system of precedence that the rule of law depends on.
> then the effective definition of the word "oppressive" being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies
I don't get how this could ever be resolved though. You can complain about how "oppressive" is "interpreted" so they can add more words, they can say "people are harmed" and then it's up to interpretation about who is "people" and what is "harm" so then you add more words to define "people" as living homo-sapiens and then it's up to interpretation about what is "living" and on and on.
> If there is a vagueness
There is literally always vagueness. "I never said she took his money" can have 7 different interpretations just based on which word is emphasized.
It's a meaningless tautology that any English sentence has some amount of vagueness and that people will be interpreting its meaning.
Which is exactly why it's important to have a separation of powers where the legislature writes the laws and the courts interpret them. When the same entity is both writing the rules and interpreting the ambiguity in them, that's ripe for abuse.