> If they are not happy with how an agency is acting - they have the clear and obvious ability to amend the laws that govern that agency.
Changing the law requires a majority in the House and Senate and either a veto-proof majority or the signature of the President. It's not supposed to require only the President.
But now you have a problem. What happens if the law that actually passed is ambiguous? Who resolves the ambiguity?
The courts get the first pass. Then if there is consensus they got it wrong, Congress can change the law. If there isn't consensus they got it wrong then the elected branches are deadlocked and the courts act as the tiebreaker until they reach consensus.
Making the President the tiebreaker is giving way too much power to one person.
Changing the law requires a majority in the House and Senate and either a veto-proof majority or the signature of the President. It's not supposed to require only the President.
But now you have a problem. What happens if the law that actually passed is ambiguous? Who resolves the ambiguity?
The courts get the first pass. Then if there is consensus they got it wrong, Congress can change the law. If there isn't consensus they got it wrong then the elected branches are deadlocked and the courts act as the tiebreaker until they reach consensus.
Making the President the tiebreaker is giving way too much power to one person.