It's much harder to change a law, because there are many more chefs in the kitchen. The president can put pressure on any of the executive agencies to make any policy they want. One person should not have that much power over ~400,000,000 people, even if i agree with that person.
Federal laws should be simple and straight forward enough that most people agree with them. The only way to achieve that is to have some accountability to those people.
I think the inherent complexity of, e.g. environmental regulation is such that it's impossible to write them in a way that is both effective and straightforward enough to be widely understood, much less widely agreed on. Inflexibility also works against effectiveness in cases where the law must adjust rapidly to changing conditions. While the US hasn't implemented it terribly well, I think the executive agency model is potentially a good one.
Most people cannot agree on even simple and straightforward issues due to any number of reasons ranging from capacity for change, political alignment, or what their favorite news anchor told them to do.
And that seems obvious enough that it really does just sound like you're wanting deregulation.
And if not, then it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Most people cannot agree on even simple and straightforward issues due to any number of reasons ranging from capacity for change, political alignment, or what their favorite news anchor told them to do
This is not true, most people don't really care. They might have a team they root for, but even those seemingly braindead people that are posting on the internet towing their party line are just looking for a way to fit in. They are all capable of thinking for themselves, and most of them will have a reasonable conversation with you if you run into them in the real world.
Seriously all I am saying is that regulation should be slow to change, and be approved by elected officials. I also think there should be way more congressional districts, and senators. Currently there is way too small of a sample size to be representative of the population. Basically I'm in favor of more democracy not less. Honestly if it wasn't such a waste of time I would be ok with replacing congress with open voting on every issue.
I do agree that it's an interesting thought experiment to consider if federal law were decided entirely by popular voting. I think it would need to be compulsory, however, to ensure enough people voted on niche issues.
Isn't the proposal that any evidence of the toxicity of cadmium be given to the legislators? Presumably with information about the cost of regulating cadmium in drinking water so that they can weigh the tradeoffs?
> If you think congress is incapable of oversight ...
I think the burden of proof is on you to show why you think congress is capable of oversight.
Selection bias, etc, but when I reflect on this I can think (and quickly find) dozens of instances, large and small, where congress has demonstrated "oversight incompetence".
Congress can always override the agency if needed. If you think congress is incapable of oversight then you are just for complete deregulation.