USA / CANADA / vaccination / foreign nationals

[ken_sylvania]

Well, even that is still illegal. It just means they didn't get caught. If I'm driving 70 in 50 zone and a friendly or lazy cop decides not to pull me over and give me a ticket. Does that mean I didn't break the law? It is not actually within the authority of a border guard to suspend or exempt people from the legal requirements for entry. It just means they are looking the other way while you break the law.

Strangely enough though it isn’t even within the authority of the President to suspend DACA which in turn was about suspending people from legal requirements to entry. I suppose the only authority left in America is a (liberal) judge in Hawai’i.

Not true. The obvious authority to suspend or modify any law is the authority that implemented it in the first place. Congress in the case of statutes, administrative agencies in the case of regulations, and the president in the case of executive orders.

In each of those cases there are established legal procedures to be followed. And in the case of administrative agencies, they have the power to act quickly on an emergency basis but such actions are always temporary and either expire or must be followed up by a more deliberative permanent action. There are also very clear lines of authority specifying who is authorized to take actions and who is not. With respect to entry into the US, the Secretary of Homeland Security can take administrative actions as can certain other people in the chain of command who are delegated that authority. But a border patrol agent cannot decide what the law should be for himself or herself.

There are also well established procedures and standards for things like administrative discretion but they should be applied fairly and generally. Whether you get arrested for breaking a law should not depend on the arbitrary mood or opinions of the officer you encounter. Otherwise you don't really have the rule of law.

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

[temporal1]

Yes, I suspected the crossing wasn’t on the up and up one way or another, but it’s possible they may have found a friendly border guard.

Well, even that is still illegal. It just means they didn't get caught. If I'm driving 70 in 50 zone and a friendly or lazy cop decides not to pull me over and give me a ticket. Does that mean I didn't break the law? It is not actually within the authority of a border guard to suspend or exempt people from the legal requirements for entry. It just means they are looking the other way while you break the law.

Strangely enough though it isn’t even within the authority of the President to suspend DACA which in turn was about suspending people from legal requirements to entry. I suppose the only authority left in America is a (liberal) judge in Hawai’i.

Police, and judges, and others, have power of discretions in their work. They aren’t robots.
For instance, there are warning notices. They can verbally warn and advise (go, and sin no more). Judges, of course, have quite a lot of power to discern in their rulings. (And there are appeals.) Little is beyond appeal.

Not taking the hardest line possible cannot be presumed to be errant or lazy.

Some persons should not be in positions of authority.
Possibly the biggest problem with weeding them out are unions, known for returning the incompetent+corrupt to active duty.
All unions are known for this. Much damage can be done, even loss of life. But ‘way more than loss of life.

[Ken]

Strangely enough though it isn’t even within the authority of the President to suspend DACA which in turn was about suspending people from legal requirements to entry. I suppose the only authority left in America is a (liberal) judge in Hawai’i.

Not true. The obvious authority to suspend or modify any law is the authority that implemented it in the first place. Congress in the case of statutes, administrative agencies in the case of regulations, and the president in the case of executive orders.

In each of those cases there are established legal procedures to be followed. And in the case of administrative agencies, they have the power to act quickly on an emergency basis but such actions are always temporary and either expire or must be followed up by a more deliberative permanent action. There are also very clear lines of authority specifying who is authorized to take actions and who is not. With respect to entry into the US, the Secretary of Homeland Security can take administrative actions as can certain other people in the chain of command who are delegated that authority. But a border patrol agent cannot decide what the law should be for himself or herself.

There are also well established procedures and standards for things like administrative discretion but they should be applied fairly and generally. Whether you get arrested for breaking a law should not depend on the arbitrary mood or opinions of the officer you encounter. Otherwise you don't really have the rule of law.

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president. Here is a very detailed discussion from the Congressional Research Service (i.e. Congress) on that very topic: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10818

[ken_sylvania]

Not true. The obvious authority to suspend or modify any law is the authority that implemented it in the first place. Congress in the case of statutes, administrative agencies in the case of regulations, and the president in the case of executive orders.

In each of those cases there are established legal procedures to be followed. And in the case of administrative agencies, they have the power to act quickly on an emergency basis but such actions are always temporary and either expire or must be followed up by a more deliberative permanent action. There are also very clear lines of authority specifying who is authorized to take actions and who is not. With respect to entry into the US, the Secretary of Homeland Security can take administrative actions as can certain other people in the chain of command who are delegated that authority. But a border patrol agent cannot decide what the law should be for himself or herself.

There are also well established procedures and standards for things like administrative discretion but they should be applied fairly and generally. Whether you get arrested for breaking a law should not depend on the arbitrary mood or opinions of the officer you encounter. Otherwise you don't really have the rule of law.

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president.

Really? Which one?

[joshuabgood]

Not true. The obvious authority to suspend or modify any law is the authority that implemented it in the first place. Congress in the case of statutes, administrative agencies in the case of regulations, and the president in the case of executive orders.

In each of those cases there are established legal procedures to be followed. And in the case of administrative agencies, they have the power to act quickly on an emergency basis but such actions are always temporary and either expire or must be followed up by a more deliberative permanent action. There are also very clear lines of authority specifying who is authorized to take actions and who is not. With respect to entry into the US, the Secretary of Homeland Security can take administrative actions as can certain other people in the chain of command who are delegated that authority. But a border patrol agent cannot decide what the law should be for himself or herself.

There are also well established procedures and standards for things like administrative discretion but they should be applied fairly and generally. Whether you get arrested for breaking a law should not depend on the arbitrary mood or opinions of the officer you encounter. Otherwise you don't really have the rule of law.

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president. Here is a very detailed discussion from the Congressional Research Service on that very topic: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10818

Some people make a good argument that in fact Congress is not empowered to delegate power to the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch only has the power afforded it by the Constitution. Therefore, things like the "War Powers Act" are inherently unconstitutional abrogations of authority by the legislative branch.

[Ken]

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president.

Really? Which one?

See the above link that were I edited my previous response to include it, or look here for a detailed discussion of the topic: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10818

[Ken]

So are you saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend or eliminate student debt?

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president. Here is a very detailed discussion from the Congressional Research Service on that very topic: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10818

Some people make a good argument that in fact Congress is not empowered to delegate power to the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch only has the power afforded it by the Constitution. Therefore, things like the "War Powers Act" are inherently unconstitutional abrogations of authority by the legislative branch.

People make the argument but it isn't a good one. Modern government would be utterly impossible without delegation of authority. 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen cannot possibly manage the rulemaking process for every single area of government from highway safety, food safety, pollution and emissions standards, forest management, fisheries management, securities and banking regulations, etc. Congress has neither the time nor expertise nor analytical abilities to do any of that. For example, in the narrow area of commercial fisheries management, NOAA manages offshore fishing regulations through 5 regional offices and with 8 regional advisory councils that each have representatives from industry, states, and federal agencies that do analysis, take weeks worth of public testimony, and make policy. The fishing regulations for crab boats in the Bering Sea are immensely complicated and completely different from the regulations for lobster fishing in Maine, shrimp fishing in the Gulf Coast, or tuna fishing in Hawaii. Congress cannot possibly manage all of that so they delegate the authority for fisheries management to NOAA and set up the basic standards and process by which NOAA is supposed to do that in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act. Which they revisit and revise every 5-7 years or so to see how it is going as part of the Congressional oversight process. That is actually a much better way of doing things. If, for example, Bering Sea crab fishermen want to delay the start of the red king crab fishing season from January 20 to February 10 this year because of ice conditions on the Bering Sea or because the crab are maturing slower this year then they can go to the Alaska Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries and get a regulatory change made with relatively little fuss. That sort of thing would be utterly impossible if they had to go to Congress during the current lame duck session and get Congress to carve out the time to address that sort of thing in Washington DC. Does Congress really have time in mid-December to take 2 days of public testimony from crab fishermen and fisheries scientists (who would all have to fly to Washington DC) in order to change the date of the red king crab fishing season in the Bering Sea? No one would want that. Multiply that times hundreds of industries and agencies doing rulemaking in thousands of arcane areas and you see the problem.

So Congress sets broad directions and standards for the executive branch agencies and then periodically reviews their performance as part of the oversight process. There is no country on earth that doesn't delegate administrative rulemaking and regulatory authority to executive branch agencies because it would be impossible to manage a modern government any other way.

The War Powers act is sort of a special case and actually does the opposite of what you suggest. It was passed in 1973 in an attempt to reign in the ability of the president to commit troops to overseas conflicts like Vietnam without a formal declaration of war by Congress. In other words it was intended to restrict executive branch power to make war, not enhance it.

[joshuabgood]

Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the president. Here is a very detailed discussion from the Congressional Research Service on that very topic: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10818

Some people make a good argument that in fact Congress is not empowered to delegate power to the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch only has the power afforded it by the Constitution. Therefore, things like the "War Powers Act" are inherently unconstitutional abrogations of authority by the legislative branch.

People make the argument but it isn't a good one. Modern government would be utterly impossible without delegation of authority. 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen cannot possibly manage the rulemaking process for every single area of government from highway safety, food safety, pollution and emissions standards, forest management, fisheries management, securities and banking regulations, etc. Congress has neither the time nor expertise nor analytical abilities to do any of that. For example, in the narrow area of commercial fisheries management, NOAA manages offshore fishing regulations through 5 regional offices and with 8 regional advisory councils that each have representatives from industry, states, and federal agencies that do analysis, take weeks worth of public testimony, and make policy. The fishing regulations for crab boats in the Bering Sea are immensely complicated and completely different from the regulations for lobster fishing in Maine, shrimp fishing in the Gulf Coast, or tuna fishing in Hawaii. Congress cannot possibly manage all of that so they delegate the authority for fisheries management to NOAA and set up the basic standards and process by which NOAA is supposed to do that in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act. Which they revisit and revise every 5-7 years or so to see how it is going as part of the Congressional oversight process. That is actually a much better way of doing things. If, for example, Bering Sea crab fishermen want to delay the start of the red king crab fishing season from January 20 to February 10 this year because of ice conditions on the Bering Sea or because the crab are maturing slower this year then they can go to the Alaska Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries and get a regulatory change made with relatively little fuss. That sort of thing would be utterly impossible if they had to go to Congress during the current lame duck session and get Congress to carve out the time to address that sort of thing in Washington DC. No one would want that.

So Congress sets broad directions and standards for the executive branch agencies and then periodically reviews their performance as part of the oversight process. There is no country on earth that doesn't delegate administrative rulemaking and regulatory authority to executive branch agencies because it would be impossible to manage a modern government any other way.

The War Powers act is sort of a special case and actually does the opposite of what you suggest. It was passed in 1973 in an attempt to reign in the ability of the president to commit troops to overseas conflicts like Vietnam without a formal declaration of war by Congress. In other words it was intended to restrict executive branch power to make war, not enhance it.

The War Powers act permits the president to wage ware absent a Congressional Declaration. That is the problem. There hasn't been a declaration of war since. I know the "intent' of the War Powers Act, however, it is a good example of why, according to some, Legislative powers must remain in legislative hands and cannot be unconstitutionally ceded to other branches.

Re your other arguments, I understand them, but I don't find them compelling. There are ways that Congress could own with its own committees etc...the legislation writing process. Autocrats writing and changing regulations at the political whim of an executive is destabilizing and undemocratic, some feel.

[Ken]

Some people make a good argument that in fact Congress is not empowered to delegate power to the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch only has the power afforded it by the Constitution. Therefore, things like the "War Powers Act" are inherently unconstitutional abrogations of authority by the legislative branch.

People make the argument but it isn't a good one. Modern government would be utterly impossible without delegation of authority. 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen cannot possibly manage the rulemaking process for every single area of government from highway safety, food safety, pollution and emissions standards, forest management, fisheries management, securities and banking regulations, etc. Congress has neither the time nor expertise nor analytical abilities to do any of that. For example, in the narrow area of commercial fisheries management, NOAA manages offshore fishing regulations through 5 regional offices and with 8 regional advisory councils that each have representatives from industry, states, and federal agencies that do analysis, take weeks worth of public testimony, and make policy. The fishing regulations for crab boats in the Bering Sea are immensely complicated and completely different from the regulations for lobster fishing in Maine, shrimp fishing in the Gulf Coast, or tuna fishing in Hawaii. Congress cannot possibly manage all of that so they delegate the authority for fisheries management to NOAA and set up the basic standards and process by which NOAA is supposed to do that in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act. Which they revisit and revise every 5-7 years or so to see how it is going as part of the Congressional oversight process. That is actually a much better way of doing things. If, for example, Bering Sea crab fishermen want to delay the start of the red king crab fishing season from January 20 to February 10 this year because of ice conditions on the Bering Sea or because the crab are maturing slower this year then they can go to the Alaska Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries and get a regulatory change made with relatively little fuss. That sort of thing would be utterly impossible if they had to go to Congress during the current lame duck session and get Congress to carve out the time to address that sort of thing in Washington DC. No one would want that.

So Congress sets broad directions and standards for the executive branch agencies and then periodically reviews their performance as part of the oversight process. There is no country on earth that doesn't delegate administrative rulemaking and regulatory authority to executive branch agencies because it would be impossible to manage a modern government any other way.

The War Powers act is sort of a special case and actually does the opposite of what you suggest. It was passed in 1973 in an attempt to reign in the ability of the president to commit troops to overseas conflicts like Vietnam without a formal declaration of war by Congress. In other words it was intended to restrict executive branch power to make war, not enhance it.

The War Powers act permits the president to wage ware absent a Congressional Declaration. That is the problem. There hasn't been a declaration of war since. I know the "intent' of the War Powers Act, however, it is a good example of why, according to some, Legislative powers must remain in legislative hands and cannot be unconstitutionally ceded to other branches.

Re your other arguments, I understand them, but I don't find them compelling. There are ways that Congress could own with its own committees etc...the legislation writing process. Autocrats writing and changing regulations at the political whim of an executive is destabilizing and undemocratic, some feel.

The president has always deployed troops into conflicts without a declaration of war by Congress going all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 when President Washington sent an army of Federal troops to western Pennsylvania to put down a tax rebellion without any Congressional declaration of war. Presidents continued to stretch that authority more and more until we reached the Vietnam war and Congress finally passed the War Powers act to rein in the power of the president. It was opposed by President Nixon because he viewed it as curtailing of presidential power, not the opposite.

Let's go back to my fisheries management example. The Alaska Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service issues well over 100 regulatory changes in any given year, or an average of over 2 per week. They are on generally arcane and technical subjects that are only of interest and knowledge to the fishing industry in Alaska and a few others like local environmental groups. Stuff like fishing season dates, salmon bycatch limits in the pollock and cod fisheries, protective fishing closures around sea lion rookeries in the Aleutian islands, salmon and halibut subsistence fishing regulations for native tribes, equipment and safety regulations for charter boat operators taking tourists out on fishing trips, etc. etc. Multiply that by 10 for all the other fishing regions in the US from Maine to Florida to Southern California to Hawaii to American Samoa. It would be impossible and inefficient for the agency itself to do that from one central location in Washington DC, much less to expect Congress to do it all without delegation. Do you think it is better for bureaucrats and legislators in Washington DC who have no expertise and are 4,000 miles away to make all of these arcane decisions? Or is it better handled by local regulators who are close to the fishing grounds and are in day-to-day contact with the fishing industry? The Soviet Union tried to do that sort of extremely centralized decision-making and it did not go well.

And that is just one very small branch of the government.

[ohio jones]

Multiply that times hundreds of industries and agencies doing rulemaking in thousands of arcane areas and you see the problem.

Yes, the multiplicity of regulations is indeed a problem.

For the relative few that are needed, I understand JBG to be saying that the Alaska Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service could be under congressional control (or, for that matter, the State of Alaska), rather than part of the executive branch. Not that everything has to go through DC.