Why did Congress delegate the authority to regulate in this area to the FTC rather than for Congress itself to write detailed legislation?
218323
I would think it would be to try and reduce the amount of political influence over the body.  Then again, it was created almost 100 years ago.\n\nBack in the early 1900s there was a lot of business corruption involving trusts.  That has to be the reason they delegated it to a different body.
193832
The federal government has no delegated power to make laws concerning clothing except in those geographical areas under direct federal control.  States and localities have power to make such laws within their jurisdictions.  By and large such laws reflect local perceptions of decency and civility.\n\nDuring the last 30 or so years the existence of such laws and the application of such laws have significantly loosened.  For example, most people no longer formally dress to go to church or to dine out.  Society has come to respect (some refer to it as political correctness) those who wish to dress differently.  For those who do dress differently they should be realistic in their degree of difference by not anticipating a warm acceptance of some style and this is particularly true when dress reflects sexual mores.
611428
I believe state laws take precedence over federal laws in most cases. However, there may be "amendments" in place for federal law in case the states haven't decided on those issues yet.\n\nJust some ideas.
429031
If both the presidency and the congress are of the same party then it would seem that the party should be able to create/pass laws that favor that party's views. This can hold true for many of the bills/laws presented - congress creates and votes them in and the president does not veto it and signs them into law. Not all bills/laws get passed that way but it would seem easier...\n\nWhen the presidency and congress are of different parties there tends to be more debate/filibuster actions in congress and the presidential vetoes if the written document seems to favor one party's view over the other.\n\nWith the Dems now controlling the Majority of both houses, it will be more difficult for the President to "push" his views/agenda/wishes through the congress to create bills/laws that he wants to be enacted...\n\nHope this helps...\n\nFor instance, Jimmy Carter was a relatively unknown politician when he became President so the congress was very reluctant to create/pass any bills/laws that he desired so as an effect he has been viewed as an "relatively" ineffective president and that may have contributed to why he was not re-elected even though there is a general consensus that he was one of the top intelligent presidents of the U.S.
531835
Well, this depends on several issues.\n\n1.) If the Act of Congress attempts to modify a clause from Article III Sec. 2 of the Constitution (which gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over certain situations), then the Supreme Court can (and probably will) find the act unconstitutional and ignore it.\n\n2.) If the Act of Congress is constitutionally removing jurisdiction from the Court, then the Court may not make a decision - Jurisdiction is required for the Court to make a binding decision. They would then dismiss the case, finding that they do not have jurisdiction to decide it.
646619
I'm absolutely in favor of it.  There is no reason why a law should be tied together with some totally unrelated pork barrel project.  By the same token congress must be very careful not to pass a bill that they feel requires all elements to be law or none at all.  I can't think of a good example right now but I can foresee the possibility of this happening...where an all or nothing deal is the only acceptable result....possibly  in appropriations where you are voting on spending for some project and if all the elements of the project aren't passed then the money would be wasted.\n\n\nascarta2  wording can't be changed around like that.  contained within bills are item numbers.  a line item veto gives the president the authorization to veto one item and sign the bill into law...he could not change the wording on other items.
210181
By an act of Congress,that is both houses vote on it.  The president can declare a national holiday for a one time period, but to make it so, it must go to the Congress for approval.
86442
If the state legislature can do it, then by virtue of the fact that a city a sub-entity of the state they can do it also.  Remember unlike the difference between the states and the federal government were the federal government can not dissolve a state, that a state creates and can dissolve a city.  Therefore a city is truly for all purposes a "department" within the state whos jurisdiction is not limited by the issue (unless the state says they can't) but rather by geography.
419010
The federal government is specifically laid out in the constitution of the united states. it has grown through laws passed by congress and through judicial interpretation of these laws, for instants, congress has the right to oversee interstate commerce, judicial review says that they can now shut an  establishment down if they aren't handicapped accessible, and so on. a local government regulates everything else from property tax to speed limits to zoning laws. You have a direct say who runs your local government where as you vote for a representative to voice your opinion in federal matters.  This could literally take weeks to go over but I hope you get the basics, read up some government web sites on US democracy or get the cliff notes on Tocqueville's Democracy in America, an old book but a knowledgeable one written by a Frenchman.
327238
Hey, when FDR appointed old Joe Kennedy to the SEC everyone thought he was nuts for appointing a full on crook.  But, FDR responded it takes a crook to catch a crook.  Pretty much the same reason that industry persons are appointed to commissions and agencies that have their respective industry oversight.
407413
There are relatively few in the constitution, excluding the bill of rights, because the constitution is largely a government-organizing document, including power sharing among the three branches. (One of the reasons that the Antifederalists objected to the Constitution as written was that it did not include many specific restrictions on governmental authority, but rather which branch could do what.)\n\nThere are some restrictions.\nFor instance, Congress has only the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.  If a law does not fall within those powers, then Congress cannot enact it.\nThere are also Congressional actions which are expressly forbidden: (Article 1 Section 9) such as\n(a) No bills of attainder or ex post facto laws\n(b) No suspension of habeas corpus unless in times of invasion or rebellion\n(c) Public monies may not be spent except by appropriation and accounting by Congress\n(d) no import taxes or duties on interstate transportation.\n\nThere are also a few other "rights" -- such as the "republican form of government" clause in Article IV -- which guarantees that each state will have a republican form of government (i.e. electing representatives) and In Article III section 2 -- which guarantees a trial by jury for the trial of "all crimes."\n\nFor a complete list, simply read the Constitution without the amendments:\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/const.htm
47883
Federal branch takes care of business, it also seems to rule over those gray areas of government.\n\nState government rules the state.
463578
Congressional Revolving Doors:  \nFor many years, departing members of Congress have gravitated to the lobbying industry after leaving Capitol Hill.  The journey for the departing members has been short and often very profitable.  \n\nStrategies for Controlling the Bureaucracy:\n\nThrough sunset legislation, Texas became one of the first states to require formal reviews of how effectively state agencies are doing their jobs. Most state agencies are subject to periodic review and reauthorization by the legislature. The process has not reduced the size of the bureaucracy, but it has helped rid state government of obsolete agencies and produced greater accountability. \n\nThe legislature has also empowered the comptroller to conduct performance reviews of state programs to promote efficiency and reduce waste. In addition, Texas has adopted revolving door restrictions that prohibit former board members and key employees of regulatory agencies from going to work for regulated companies within a certain time period after leaving their state posts. \n\nhttp://wps.prenhall.com/hss_dye_politics_5/0,7238,478073-,00.html\n\nhttp://www.cleanupwashington.org/documents/RevolveDoor.pdf\n\nhttp://www.accd.edu/sac/gov/berrier/2301/bureaucracy.htm
233012
Nothing to slow down It's not the congressmen and senators who read the bills. The lobbyists are given the job of writing and reading the legislation and that saves the two houses of congress the trouble. Gives them more time to fund raise.They might do this in part not to embarrass the president,as he doesn't read either.
510397
That was not really a problem with the writing of it. It was ONE of the problems faced regarding how the states would be represented in Congress. The other problem regarding representation was the Great Compromise. That compromise created a bicameral legislature.
564169
The Constitution gives the President primary powers in foreign policy, but Congress has oversight and, ultimately, the power of the purse - if they don't like a particular course of action, they can refuse to fund it or authorize any monies to be spent on it.
120900
The agency gets its power by a delegation of authority from the legislature.  If the legislature doesn't agree with the rules being adopted or the policing of those rules they can strip the authority with additional legislation.  They can even disband the agency if they want to.  It's a game of hard ball though, and not easily carried out.