Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
There was a time when the federal government didn’t play such an outsized role in our daily lives. We had a limited-purpose government in place at the national level. That began to change when, on April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court lawlessly “amended” the Constitution.
On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded federal authority under the (previously narrow) Commerce Clause, severely undermining federalism, in response to FDR’s extortionate threat to pack the Supreme Court.
In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, and contrary to the text and previous understanding of the Constitution held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce encompasses purely local, intrastate, economic activity so long as it has a sufficient *effect* on commerce between the states.
Five years later, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commerce Clause extends federal power even to the intrastate cultivation of wheat, even if that wheat never crosses state lines, and even if it never leaves the farm where it was grown.
Since 1937, we’ve seen an explosive expansion of federal authority, which now encompasses countless, purely intrastate endeavors, including labor, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, health, safety, and welfare, and a correspondingly explosive growth in federal spending.
Even worse, as Congress’s authority has expanded, Congress has been increasingly inclined to outsource federal lawmaking to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, even though Article I, Sections 1 & 7 of the Constitution make clear that only Congress can make federal law.
Congress, as time has proven, has shunned the additional work and accountability that come with making more law, now touching on nearly every aspect of human existence, since 1937, and has therefore chosen to pass platitudes instead of laws.
Many laws passed by Congress these days provide, in essence; “we shall have good law in area X, and federal agency Y gets to make up and enforce the law as it may choose”.
These federal laws made by unelected bureaucrats, known as “rules and regulations,” although they have the same effect as any other law & violating them can result in huge fines or even imprisonment, cost Americans trillions of dollars a year, nearly as much as our tax laws!
At least our tax laws allow us to know (on some level) what the government is costing us, but not so with federal regulations!
There’s no receipt; we just pay through the nose for almost everything we buy, as nearly everything we buy is made more expensive by federal regulations.
Laws, by their very nature, tend to make certain things more difficult and therefore expensive; that by itself doesn’t make them bad. But there’s something awful about unelected bureaucrats deciding, with no accountability to voters, whether a regulation is excessive.
Even worse, they make it nearly impossible to keep track of the constantly changing requirements of federal laws. Federal bureaucrats issue about 100,000 pages of new “rules and regulations” every year.
So what’s the solution?
It’s simple:Congress must pass the REINS Act, which would prohibit federal regulations from taking effect unless or until they’ve been enacted by Congress and signed (or acquiesced to) by the President.
The Constitution already demands what the REINS Act would require, but the Supreme Court has been unwilling to enforce the so-called “non-delegation doctrine,” even though it acknowledges that the task of lawmaking cannot be delegated.
The REINS Act would fix this problem.
https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1894118119028740450/photo/1
While Republicans in Congress uniformly support the REINS Act (along with a few Democrats), it faces a significant hurdle with the Senate’s “cloture” standard, which requires 60 votes to bring debate to a close, an essential step in passing nearly all legislation.
Republicans in Congress therefore need to take a stand by holding hostage something Democrats care about.
To that end, Republicans should attach the REINS Act to any bill to increase the debt ceiling, forcing compromise in an area where it’s badly needed, restoring the separation of powers through the REINS Act.
Remember: our drift from separation of powers (in which Congress began shifting the task of lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats) didn’t begin until the Supreme Court dramatically expanded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, contrary to the Constitution’s text, structure, and original understanding.
It follows logically that, if Congress can begin to restore separation of powers (as it would do by enacting the REINS Act) there would soon be far less new federal law being created each year, as elected lawmakers would be more reluctant to impose new burdens on the American people; far more reluctant than federal bureaucrats who never have to stand for election.
@BasedMikeLee
