And Professor Chafetz is correct about that. That absence of vigor in exercising Congressional powers under the Constitution stems in large part from the fact that incumbent politicians in Washington tend to not want to rock the boat. They like their perks and their privileges, and they like the power they exercise, along with the lobbyists wining and dining them, and desperately want to keep such power and privilege. But they also have to justify their existence. Therefore, they pass legislation that is long on wind and short on substance. Difficult political questions are resolved by the vaguest of language because the typical thinking is: boy, this could be a hard question to decide, and it could be controversial or create gridlock. Let's compromise by delegating this or that question to the bureaucracy; or, in the alternative, let's just write the legislation this way, we'll let the judiciary figure it out.

Through a combination of sheer legislative deviousness, intellectual and moral laziness, and political cowardice (all a splendid part of human nature), Congress does its worst in failing to properly exercise its proper prerogatives.

The only way to deal with this inevitable flaw of human political nature? The only ways I know of are: (1) limiting, by Constitutional amendment, the time Congress spends in session; (2) term limits; and (3) House and Senate rules that require a certain amount of specificity in legislation (although those rules can be changed at whim; I prefer the first option most of all). But I am not optimistic that this problem can ever be solved.