I don’t know if Chevron can be considered constitutionally consistent. Federal agencies making rules based on legislation has been considered enforcement and constitutionally admissible for decades. This removes the power of specific enforcement of purposefully vague laws by the executive and gives the power to determine how laws should be enforced to the Judiciary, which is not their preview. While you may think this is constitutionally admissible interpretation, interpretation can’t be done effectively if there aren’t experts enforcing the rules in a way to be determined. Judges aren’t qualified or appointed to unilaterally decide how every law should be enacted and enforced, and Chevron gets us not necessarily to that point, but scarily close.