alt Hacker NewsSure, but that's true before and after this EO.
What I'm talking about is accountability for interpretation of the law.
Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
If agencies were not accountable to the President, you basically have an unelected/unaccountable (when it comes to policy within interpretation of the law) bureaucrat that the voters are unable to hold accountable.
With this EO, the voters can elect a President who can then direct the agency head to execute interpretation Y.
That seems like the more idea scenario?
Replies
It's to be seen how "interpretation" is interpreted, if the president can declare it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
If a law is too much subject to interpretation, anyhow, the congress, which is the branch deputed at making the law, can change it at any time.
And most of all, I'm not sure in the US case, but when there are interpretation disputes you typically can have courts declare what's the correct interpretation.
> Let's say the head of an agency decides their interpretation of the law is X, but the President thinks it's Y. You can't bring them to court because X and Y fall within the interpretation of law.
Uh, who is “you” in this scenario? Because for most reasonable values, yes, you can.
Differing interpretations of the law by different executive branch officers have never stopped outside parties from suing those executive officers over their execution of the law, with the courts ultimately deciding the correct interpretation (sometimes with some degree of deference, but never absolute, to executive interpretations.)
The president names the agency heads, and their mandates expire roughly or exactly at the same time as the president's. That's more than enough control. The president can't and shouldn't then go and get into the weeds of specific policies that those agency heads then coordinate.
Also, settling the ultimate interpretation of the law is indeed the prerogative of the courts. This has actually changed quite recently in some ways - the SC has recently struck down the Chevron Doctrine, which held that the courts would defer to the executive when a law could be interpreted in different ways. So right now if Congress passes a law that says "the EPA shall insure that American citizens have potable drinking water", it is ultimately up to the courts to decide if the level of lead in water set by the EPA makes the water potable or not.
But however you slice it, the president shouldn't be the one to decide if the level of lead in water being enforced by the EPA is too little or too much. If the head of the EPA and the courts believe that a certain level is good enough, than that's that. After all, the president chose this head of the EPA. The next president can choose another head.