You’re confusing legislative policy with regulatory action. Congress has mandated that food not be contaminated in the pure food and drug act. It is now up to the regulators to determine what an appropriate minimum concentration of the bacteria/etc is, testing, etc.
So, for example, here is the FDA’s description on how to detect the various types of listeria in food processing www.fda.gov/media/157717...
But like, these are all different questions. “I want uncontaminated food” is a goal, “food shall not be contaminated by bacteria” is a (current!) law, and the specifics of how to detect that is a regulation. This is government 101 stuff
And so same applies to gun policy. If we legislated all semi automatic firearms to be illegal, it would then fall through the regulators to determine what actually is a semi automatic gun.
I'm lost as to why you think the specificity between goal, policy, legislation, and regulation is so important in social media debate. People are saying: "I want less guns." "I want dangerous guns off the streets." "I want schools to be safer." What is so wrong with that, that has so got your ire?
To your earlier post: you don't say "I want healthier food." Well, that's great. Because this is an area in which you're well educated, and can articulate it in a better / different way. What's wrong with other people saying "I want healthier food?" I'm lost as to the expectation that everyone
be as articulate and knowledgeable as you. School shootings are bad. All shootings are bad. Personally, I find it incredibly easy to accept people saying "I want less of these," without requiring them to legislate it themselves. That's what legislators are for.
For what it's worth: I think you're a great person, and worth debating on this, 'cos I think you've gone a little myopic and lost perspective. YMMV. Tell me to shush if necessary.
And to really spoon feed the metaphor here, they still required Congress to know the very basics of what they were doing, that bacteria exist and are bad in food, and so it’s not unreasonable to expect Congress to know what a semi automatic weapon is when passing legislation on it
The metaphor doesn’t work because everyone agrees food poisoning is bad. No one in America thinks guns are bad or gun regulation is needed. Assault, semi, whatever. There’s nothing to get worked up about, the state of affairs will remain for another hundred years.
I don’t think either of those statements are accurate tbh
I have some bad news for you about the current administration and their opinions on food poisoning being bad.
You’re right! A thousand years of darkness all around. Complete child cultural victory.
I'm really struggling with the fact that regulations are drafted at the executive level instead of by independent offices under Congress. If it's the Constitution that's the problem, maybe that needs looking at.
I don't think Congress is getting short-changed here. Congress is free to fully spec everything out in the law if they want but often *chooses* to establish these regulatory bodies in order to be flexible with the details.
I understand why you would want to leave the details to experts for reasons of competence and being able to react quickly to new circumstances. But those people should be in Congress' direct chain of command so the Executive doesn't get any funny ideas about how much power they have.
The executive must have no flexibility over what the rules are, in my (probably naive) opinion.
idk I think it's kind of nice to have an executive. It means everyone understands exactly who is democratically responsible when an agency isn't being managed well.
Again, granted. But that is at the implementation level. *What* is to be implemented should not be at the discretion of the executive, only *how*. I think that line has become illegibly blurred at this point.
"not be contaminated" is exactly as vague as anything you are complaining about