Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
EDIT: but if you're really curious, I don't find the example you provided persuasive as a case that violates due process. which is I suppose the main reason I keep asking you to explain why you think it does. I suspect the courts agree with me, or the actions you described would have been ruled illegal. well, not exactly "would have been" since it appears that you've got from a few facts of a case to conjecture of what the agenct *might* do and then ask me whether those possible actions violate due process. and none of that, what might happen, really gets to the heart of the thread.
You don't believe that due process means that each decision made by a government agency must be run before a vote of congress do you?
|
Why this doesn't surprise me is truly a let down. Like most people, you accept that due process is ONLY something that the courts handle through judicial process of indictment, prosecution, and adjudication. Because of that line of thinking is exactly how regulatory agencies have the kind of power that they do. When ANY agency can change a rule that affects the entire populace, whether they are actually impaired or not, that violates our due process. We elect representatives from our districts to debate and legislate, not hired agency employees for which there is no accountability. The courts are not the sole arbitors of due process, for if they were, we would be little more than an oligarchy, ruled and governed by the decisions of judges alone.
Do I think that decisions made by agencies need to be run by congress? No, because agencies should not have the power or authority to make decisions that add to laws or create new ones. The constitution provides that power to congress alone, not an agency under the executive branch. Not to make a personal attack on you, but it's that line of thinking that I mentioned earlier that provides the avenue of losing rights and freedoms. Too many people blindly accept that this is now the way.