{"id":74770,"date":"2022-07-04T05:00:49","date_gmt":"2022-07-04T09:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=74770"},"modified":"2022-07-03T18:18:08","modified_gmt":"2022-07-03T22:18:08","slug":"a-first-tentative-step-to-reining-back-the-juggernaut-that-is-the-modern-administrative-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2022\/07\/04\/a-first-tentative-step-to-reining-back-the-juggernaut-that-is-the-modern-administrative-state\/","title":{"rendered":"A first, tentative step to reining back the juggernaut that is the modern administrative state"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brad Polumbo<\/a> has words of praise for US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Panorama of the west facade of United States Supreme Court Building at dusk in Washington, D.C., 10 October, 2011.
Photo by Joe Ravi via Wikimedia Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

“Vesting federal legislative power in Congress [rather than bureaucrats]”, Gorsuch writes, “is vital because the framers believed that a republic \u2014 a thing of the people \u2014 would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers’.”<\/p>\n

But what about those, like dissenting Justice Elena Kagan, who say that federal bureaucrats need wide latitude because Congress is failing to, in their view, adequately address climate change?<\/p>\n

“Admittedly, lawmaking under our Constitution can be difficult,” Gorsuch acknowledges. “But that is nothing particular to our time nor any accident.” <\/p>\n

“The framers believed that the power to make new laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty …” he said. “As a result, the framers deliberately sought to make lawmaking difficult by insisting that two houses of Congress must agree to any new law and the President must concur or a legislative supermajority must override his veto.”<\/p>\n

With an empowered, unelected bureaucracy, “agencies could churn out new laws more or less at whim”, Gorsuch adds. “Intrusions on liberty would not be difficult and rare, but easy and profuse.”<\/p>\n

This isn’t hypothetical speculation \u2014 it’s exactly what we\u2019ve seen under the status quo. <\/p>\n

For a glaring example, just consider the Centers for Disease Control\u2019s pandemic-era “eviction moratorium”. The federal agency unilaterally declared that evictions nationwide were prohibited in many circumstances by citing an old statute that gave the CDC director the ability to order in specific places “such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he\/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.” <\/p>\n

They went from that to a nationwide “eviction moratorium”. Stretch, much? <\/p>\n

That’s right: Unelected government officials effectively commandeered the nation’s rental market, which caused tremendous dysfunction, trampled over property rights, and sabotaged the supply of rental housing. (For which prices are now surging. Shocker!) And, it was years before the courts finally stopped them and struck down the “moratorium”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brad Polumbo has words of praise for US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch: “Vesting federal legislative power in Congress [rather than bureaucrats]”, Gorsuch writes, “is vital because the framers believed that a republic \u2014 a thing of the people \u2014 would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35193,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,84,9,13],"tags":[715,322,661,752],"class_list":["post-74770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucracy","category-government","category-law","category-usa","tag-constitution","tag-nannystate","tag-regulation","tag-supremecourt"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/favicon.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-jrY","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74770"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74770\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":74772,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74770\/revisions\/74772"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}