Forgetting about Article I, are we?

Now that comment is just lawless — it's in the same general category as the "thinking" that led to Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and others having to face suspension or even disbarment in multiple states.

(For lurkers:) For decades, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for Congress to delegate authority to executive-branch agencies to deal with changing conditions — as long as the delegation was properly cabined, with administrative procedures, political accountability through presidential appointments and Senate confirmations, judicial review, etc.

The "conservative" movement, though hates that "delegation doctrine"; those folks want only Congress to be able to restrict what people can do, by passing laws. According to me, for many of those folks, it's because they just can't stand having anyone tell them they can't do whatever they want (a.k.a. "You're not the boss of me!").

These soi-disant conservatives know that in the modern era, Congress is largely dysfunctional when it comes to enacting restrictive laws. So, a long-term project of crippling agency authority has been the best way for them to free themselves to do whatever TF they feel like — negative effects on the rest of us be damned.

And indeed, in recent years, the "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court has been hacking away at Congress's ability to delegate. The conservatives on the Court have announced new ipse-dixit rules such as the "major questions doctrine" (MQD), in which SCOTUS purports to reserve to the judicial branch the authority to overrule agency interpretations of the law in areas that the justices regard as "major questions." (That goes back to Chief Justice John Marshall's jaw-dropping bootstrapping of judicial-review authority in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.)

Bottom line: What Rayiner seems to be saying above is this: Oh, so it's OK for Congress to delegate to agencies? Fine, then it's OK (he implies) for President Trump to go along with allowing out-of-their-depth strangers — Elon Musk and the DOGE Boys — to aggressively "disrupt" absolutely-vital functions of the national government, with no evident oversight from anyone (it's not at all clear that President Trump is paying any attention himself).

If Congress has become “dysfunctional,” as you put it, isn’t it even more important for the executive branch to be highly responsive to elections? Otherwise you’re positing a system where all the governance is performed by a civil service comprised 90% of laptop class democrats, with elected Congress merely laying out procedural rules for how policy should be adopted and the elected president merely supervising compliance with those rules. I can see why democrats love this idea, but I can’t imagine why you’d think it would be a persuasive argument to anyone else.

Speaking of “lawless”—if legal conservatives stooped to finding constitutional principles in “emanations from penumbras” we’d have a heck of a lot more fun. Why not have a “living constitution” that reflects our view of what modern developments demand?

Because "[y]our view" is dangerously naïve about human nature, and might have been serviceable in earlier times but less likely to be so now?

It’s GOT to be more than seems to be happening now.