> If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise.
Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government.
> Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.
Why not?
Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate."
We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
>Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws.
Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either.
In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible.
If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely.
>The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive.
The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts.
The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law.
Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.
Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government.
> Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power.
Why not?
Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate."
We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.