The Fed is notionally independent, while the FTC is part of the executive branch.
Yes, it's bullshit either way, but it's not hard to see the court's reasoning here.
The Fed is notionally independent, while the FTC is part of the executive branch.
Yes, it's bullshit either way, but it's not hard to see the court's reasoning here.
Incorrect.
The FTC is not simply under the executive branch, it’s defined to be an independent agency.
The handling of the Federal Reserve and the FTC cases are creating a very interesting situation for how agencies can be defined by Congress.
Notionally, under a law created by Congress. But the Constitution defines the Executive Branch as being under control of the Chief Executive. But again, Congress has been able to cede their rights and privileges under law to other people/groups.
Ends up the USSC will have to decide.
I’m not disputing that Congress can cede power to the Executive Branch. Rulemaking and regulatory agencies like the FTC and FCC are great examples of this.
I will argue that the inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s rulings are creating an environment where some independent agencies will receive special consideration based on their function. This sets up an environment where Congress loses out on the collaborative benefits and safeguards of independent agencies in favor of the courts further empowering the Executive.
The problem with the Supreme Court’s rulings isn’t “inconsistency.” It’s that it completely fucked up the precedent in the 1930s and allowed an unconstitutional fourth branch of government to be created.
“Unconstitutional” is a loaded term that fails to convey any meaningful insight if you consider the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so.
That said, there isn’t a fourth branch of government and the strict boundaries of branches is a rather… elementary understanding how our government works.
If an independent agency is “unconstitutional” and a fourth branch, how would you define our Armed Forces in practice?
> the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so.
The Supreme Court has power because the express grant of power in Article III; the idea that they could somehow fulfill their role in adjudicating cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States without both deciding what those writings mean and deciding whether something purporting to be a law of the United States was, in fact, an act authorized by the Constitution when that is precisely the source of the controversy before them is patently absurd.
Right, both the FTC and the Fed (and others) are independent agencies created by congress with leaders selected by the president and approved by the senate.
The argument is all of this violates the constitution. There has not yet been a clear principle articulated by the court for treating them differently.
Not notionally, their independence is codified.
The idea of a unitary executive is obviously being relitigated but there's no question that independent executive agencies have existed for a century.