I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.
Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
> The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.
This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate.
> If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead.
> If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)
"only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous"
If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.
"if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues"
... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.
Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.