[Rockingham]

Supreme Court case law holds that delegation of law making authority is often necessary because of the special expertise that must be brought to bear by administrative agencies if Congressional purposes are to be accomplished. Congress though is required to provide an "intelligible principle" for federal administrative agencies to guide their exercise of delegated legislative authority.

Thus it is constitutionally sufficient if Congress "clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority." (Mistretta v. United States (1989))

In practice, this works better than one might expect. For example, the FDA, far better than Congress, can bring to bear scientific and technical expertise in a responsible fashion when it writes regulations and decides which drugs may come to market. Congress would make a hopeless mess of such a task. The members would shake lobbyists down for contributions and ask for a plant to be located in their district if they vote to approve a new drug.

In practice, administrative agencies are not autonomous. They are keenly alert to Congressional sentiment when they make final decisions. Agencies know that Congress can ultimately make its will felt. In addition, administrative procedures and judicial remedies can greatly affect what an agency does or is permitted to do.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I understand that.

Again, I’m talking about confiscation of property and incarceration.

I don’t give a flying F*** what SCOTUS says, I shouldn’t be imprisoned because I violated a “rule” that some bureaucrat at the IRS wrote.

IOW Supreme Court case law is morally wrong if it says that is legal. And I don’t believe that the writers of the Constitution ever intended for this to be legal.