We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Doubtful. There are 60,000 pages of federal administrative law. Nobody knows those laws because it would be impossible, but they can nail you if you break one. Not only that, but Congress not only never passed those details of the laws, but has no control of them either. UNDERSTANDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.
The administrative state as small town speed trap: The town makes the traffic rules within some guidelines laid out in state law, though there are many stories of towns passing ordinances that are illegal. They hire the cops who apply the ordinances and apprehend those who allegedly violate them. The cops' salaries depend on the town making money and traffic fines make a great revenue source and justification for new equipment. Then they also hire the traffic court judge who sees the same prosecution (i.e. town attorney and cops) for every case and can rarely conceive of someone walking into court with the presumption of innocence. Note that his salary and continued relevance rest on fines being paid. It takes a particularly well connected and well heeled "violator" to be able to fight and appeal all the conflict of interest here. And if someone looks like they might prevail against the town, well those cases can always be dropped or bargained away.
that congress can delegate its constitutional authority is settled: yes. until you either amend the constitution or the USSC holds otherwise. it's childish to assert that administrative law is unconstitutional unless you are profoundly ignorant about how constitutional law works, you are conflating what is with what you want.
how administrative authority is to be exercised is an evolving question that looks like its headed for a more restrictive interpretation. that sometimes administrative agencies exceed their constitutional reach is obvious.
taking that Ginsberg quote out of context is deceptive. while the administrative IRS has an administrative tax court, but ultimately its decisions are reviewable by an Article III court, from a trial court to the USSC.
Vic Morrow's tommy gun
The words of the Constitution are: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That's in Article I, Section One. Not a word about delegation and the use of "vested" implies that they may not delegate that power. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Congress can delegate its law-making powers to the Executive Branch - that's who the agencies, etc are, Executive Branch - but the language used in the decisions to reach that conclusion is talking about necessity because the issues are too complex for Congress or the subject matter is to technical. Those are not constitutional principles nor are they notions of constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the Congress has purported to "delegate" judicial powers to the administrative bureaucrats; Congress has no judicial powers to delegate. Constitution gives those powers to the Supreme Court and such lesser courts as Congress shall by law create. And no, the IRS isn't a court. Nor is any other part of the Executive Branch. And before you repeat your insult about being profoundly ignorant of constitutional law, let me mention that I spent 35 years in the law. If there is no constitutional principal preventing agencies from being law-maker, investigating and arresting agency and adjudicator of guilt and punishment, how can one determine that "...sometimes administrative agencies exceed their constitutional reach..."? Other than by an appeal to whether one likes some particular decision or not; hardly "constitutional law". Read the legal literature of the time when the creation of these agencies was proposed and you will find, at best, legal sophistries presented as constitutional principles, designed to hide the fact that the Progressives of the time believed in the technocratic state, the rule of the elite well-educated class who have the correct opinions. In short, sir, you are mistaken as well as rude.