I’ve always thought that the electric chair would be the definition of “cruel and unusual” to the founding fathers.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. The document was meant to be a living adaptable document. In many cases rather than adapting the document directly, laws and interpretations were layered outside the document to keep most the initial structure solid. Amendments came about largely once something was deemed so important it absolutely should be embedded (like the abolishment of slavery) so few mistakes could be made.

The structure should really have a few more obvious significant layers where things could shift around over time.

"interstate commerce" has a lot to answer for regarding the creeping scope of the executive powers.

These agencies work with delegated powers. It is completely impossible for such a limited number of people as the American Congress to be experts on everything. They need advisors and structures to help them understand the world and make the right decisions, but also to make sure that these decisions are enforced.

This may not be fully developed in the US constitution because the world was much simpler back then, but it is entirely compatible with it.

Man, we have executive imposition of regulations since the very beginning of the republic. Hamilton's treasury department and customs. The 1792 postal act.

You can't have an effective executive without some kind of rulemaking authority.

Marshall wrote in 1825--

"The line has not been exactly drawn which separates those important subjects which must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself from those of less interest in which a general provision may be made and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions to fill up the details."

(And, of course, subsequent decisions have helped to draw that line more exactly).

> adjudicate violations of the regulations

You can always go to a real Article III court, but you need to exhaust the remedies within the agency first.

> The notion of Congress “delegating powers” to administrative agencies is entirely incompatible with the constitution.

With which article specifically?

Yes, enforcement should not be managed by these agencies. The way to fix this is to reshape them, not give in and let the executive run the show without checks. Of course, that requires a working legislative body and a judiciary that is not fixated on the end times.

Ok, so after you burn down this system what’s the replacement? Nothing?

The constitution has already existing answer: instead of agencies passing regulation, Congress passes laws. Agencies continue to enforce the law, and appeals are adjudicated by actual federal courts.