I wish to consider a hypothetical situation. There is a somewhat vague older law which arguably may provide a federal agency with some specific power. That power has never been exercised by the agency to date. A controversial bill comes up before the legislature which would explicitly grant that power to the agency. Should the fact that the legislature is explicitly debating granting that power imply that the earlier law is presumed to not grant said power?
If the agency suddenly decided to start exercising that power and it were challenged by a court with debate on the explicit law still ongoing, would it constitute harmful judicial activism to find that the earlier law did in fact provide the currently-debated power?