you share the same confusion as senator sasse. the writing of laws is the macro version of political science. the elected officials typically pass laws that define expected outcomes rather than the nuts and bolts of how that law/outcome is going to be realized; the micro version of political science. the implementation methodology is configured by the civil servants, again using the public feedback from the federal register notice soliciting said public comments...
No, actually I am not confused. Having knowledge as an historian, via the study of Administrative law, and also a State level civil servant.
Senator Sasse was correct, as exemplified by the creation of the very first government agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887:
https://www.historycentral.com/documents/Interstatecommerce.html
Examine this Act you will see that there was no provision for that Agency to make any regulations. It's powers and duties were specifically listed, along with it's recourses in the event the railroads it was monitoring failed to cooperate. That was pretty much the norm up until the 1930's
Congress was very jealous of it's prerogative's, so it wasn't until FDR's administration trying to deal with a number of economic problems caused by the Great Depression in keeping with his New deal starting in 1933 that most Agencies came into being. Still it was not until the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 that Congress established the standard legal foundation for how they could create regulations.
as a staffer charged with writing/revising the underlying standard operating procedures, and then implementing them, and training staff about how they were to be implemented, i absolutely did get to decide. i did not get to contradict what policy was intended, but in those areas where the law/XO was silent about implementation, my charge was to write the regulations to be implemented. that is where the gray areas become resident. only once in my career did i discuss matters with my agency administrator. in all other instances i had to construct the regulations anticipating an understanding about what was intended by the congress, aided by the language of the law as published in the aforementioned federal register...
Demonstrable of a very respectable level of experience, I commend you.
But I point to what I consider the important part as bolded above. The policy you wrote was founded on both Congressional guidance (the law creating the Agency+any supporting codes) and the guidance of your Administrator. Apparently that was your job, to translate that information into internal policy for THEIR approval.
Does that mean everyone else in the Agency you worked for could then decide what parts they would adhere to and which ones they would not?
Or did you (and your Administrator/Director/whatever) then expect subordinates to adhere to the policy, and at the very least keep either you or your boss informed of any problems?
sasse constructed a straw man without substance. his argument is that the congress should write the law and the implementing language so that the outcomes are representative of what was expected. he insists that the congress is abdicating its responsibility to do so to the executive agencies directed by the president. but his assertion is unrealistic...
Senator Sasse was referring to exactly how it was typically done before FDR created a myriad of "Alphabet Soup" Agencies which were outside the knowledge and experience of Congressmen, and over which FDR wanted as much independent control over as was possible.
Now it has become the norm. See a problem, create a law that establishes and empowers an Agency, and then move on to the important business of raising money for re-election, dining with lobbyists, and "investigating" things requiring trips around the world. Oh, and making sure their aides keep up with tax and spend bills for them to read in summary before voting party line.
But your point about expertise applies to Congressional business, they always depend on expert advisors to "summarize" for them. They seldom try to learn about any particular issue like they used to in the simpler days before FDR (and the growth of our national economy). So, does not a sitting President also have access to not only YOUR expertise but also to outside experts willing to provide policy guidance on how to implement Presidential policies?
How does your response serve to justify undermining the policy guidance the President and his Cabinet wish to apply during his term of office? Does it make it okay that say, if someone likes President Obama's goals more than they do Trump's that justifies undermining Trump?
