Posted on 06/21/2019 1:50:41 PM PDT by reaganaut1
“Delegation has no basis in the Constitution, it was New Deal BS - nowhere does the Congress have the right to hand over lawmaking authority to the Executive.”
True, that. As we all know, the only delegating in the Constitution is that of certain enumerated powers from the People to States and to the Federal government.
Letting agencies set so many of the implementing rules is Congress’ way of deflecting our anger from them to the Executive Branch agencies. Congress allowing the agencies’ detailed implementing measures to stand as public without congressional approval is dereliction of duty.
Don’t read too much into this. The perpetual argument between federalism and anti-federalism has been going on, unabated, since America was founded. It really has no resolution, *nor is it supposed to*, any more than arguing which branch of the government should dominate the other two. The trick is to find a healthy balance, fully aware that it will change all the time.
I actually noted with some amusement that the federalism-anti-federalism argument is not limited to the US. When we helped establish a new government in Iraq, the argument started right up there, and as with here, acts as a proxy for any number of other arguments.
The US constitution was written to favor federalism, states’ rights, somewhat, but that was based in the assumption that states’ rights are more tenuous than is national authority.
But it was soon realized that the national government *had* to be able to reach into the states, just to fund itself. And this led to the Whiskey Rebellion, done almost as a farce, by George Washington.
A ridiculous, irrational, unenforceable tax put on farmers in the furthest reaches of the United States. Too far away from their markets to sell their crops, they converted them into whiskey. And the tax was leveled on where they were made, not when they had made it to market. The sole purpose was to extend the reach of the national government to every corner of the nation.
Of course the farmers told the tax collectors to go to hell, which gave Washington his excuse.
In any event, since the start of progressivism, the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of anti-federalism and national government power.
So how do we now rebalance the two. And certainly without crippling our nation?
President Trump and Attorney General Barr might get the ball rolling, with the issuing of dozens or hundreds of criminal indictments against the cancerous individuals in government who have gotten away with their crimes so far.
But “time is a-wasting”.
“but ultimately Congress must pass the applicable expert recommendations into law themselves.”
Or here’s a radical thought: Congress could devolve those powers to the States. Road requirements in Illinois differ from road requirements in Mississippi. Congress could write legislation allowing Road and Highway Compacts along the lines of drivers licenses. That would largely eliminate the need for a Federal DOT.
Although “Post Roads” are specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a Federal responsibility. So perhaps that’s a bad example.
L
There are sound arguments to "devolve" the powers related to transportation infrastructure. There's actually been an ongoing political/policy discussion on this point among people in government and infrastructure planning for some years. But a good indication of the implicit danger that scenario poses can be seen by simply looking at which political forces in Washington are most strongly opposed to it: Republican members of Congress from landlocked Rocky Mountain and Great Plains states.
It should be obvious why they would oppose such a thing. A "devolution" approach to transportation policy and funding would give states the ability to choke off commerce with their neighbors by demolishing roads and bridges along the state borders. I could very easily see a scenario where the legislature of some Third World sh!t-hole like California would pass a law that says something to this effect: "CALTRANS is forbidden from constructing or maintaining any road connecting to a state that doesn't allow abortion on demand."
In that scenario, you'd give much of the U.S. interior a strong incentive to simply walk away from the United States of America and either join Canada or form a new country.
The whiskey rebellion was certainly an early assertion of federal power over the people probably the first. However, the CIC did exert direct control over the situation.
But there is I believe an important difference with federal power exerted over individuals today. Power has been vested in the numerous agencies that are really only under nominal control of the executive. As we are all painfully aware, this started in the progressive era in the early part of the 20th century. Many in government were responsible, but Wilson with his background trained in the new field of “political science” and president of the elite Ivy League institution known as Princeton gave the movement its first real ideological impetus. He and many others promoted the flawed idea that like solving a math problem, government could be based on scientific principles and carried out by trained bureaucrats. No need for the dull, greasy peasants and the ignorant unwashed masses to concern themselves over the “details”.
The technocrats in the federal government have been largely responsible for stripping the States and people of their sovergnity and individual rights. My point is that totalitarians at the NYT cannot conceive of a solution to governing a society in a complex and growing world other than to enlarge the scope and power of unelected officials at the most remote level (at the world level if they could). If states absorbed the functions now held by the federal bureaus, they would be much more accountable to the people.
Getting rid of a few seditious police state thugs at the top (or even hundreds as these agencies have tens of thousands with muliti billion dollar budgets) won’t solve the problem in the least unless these agencies are stripped of their power and mostly dissolved. What is likely is a mere changing of the Praetorian guard. In fact, a superficial “win” could make the situation worse because many conservatives will be tricked into thinking that all is right with the world, now their power has been curbed, no one is above the law, and the balance of power has been restored.
My basic point is that these agencies shouldn’t exist at least in their present form, and the States should assume their duties and functions. I don’t think that this goal is achievable under the usual mechanisms. Like the Wizard of Oz, Barr and Trump will only give people the illusion of solving the problem.
“CALTRANS is forbidden from constructing or maintaining any road connecting to a state that doesn’t allow abortion on demand.”
Fine. Then shut off the water from Colorado and the power from Arizona. That sword cuts two ways.
“In that scenario, you’d give much of the U.S. interior a strong incentive to simply walk away from the United States of America and either join Canada or form a new country.”
At this point I’m not really seeing much of a downside to that.
Best,
L
“The first National Road...”
That could be categorized under “post roads” (for the purpose of enabling timely transport of the mail). The Interstate Highway system likewise, just applies to modern circumstances. (N.B.: After a 1919 cross-country training exercise by LTC Dwight Eisenhower in support of the Good Roads Movement (and his later exposure to the German Autobahn system, this was originally conceived as a necessity for efficient movement of troops in the event of a enemy invasion) After all, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen the development of motorized vehicles.
Likewise high-speed printing presses, electronic word processing/typesetting, internet-enabled communications, and the First Amendment. As opposed to quill and ink handwritten and hand-set lead type in a manual printing press.
Likewise for ownership and use of modern semi- and full-auto firearms vs muzzle-loaders and the Second Amendment. Oh, wait...
True. Interestingly, I have wondered if the founders of this country really wanted to give the Federal government the authority to build and maintain "post roads" at all when the Constitution was being drafted. Instead, I wonder if they simply were faced with a challenge of what to do with the roads that were already there, and ultimately decided to make them "post roads" for the purpose of maintaining some kind of continuity with their prior use.
The original post roads had existed through the colonies as designated "King's roads," which were thoroughfares used mainly for British military purposes. The terms of their use were laid out in the various land grants given by the Crown in England when the colonies were settled.
So when the Constitution was drafted it wasn't like any of those founders had immediate ambitions to construct a whole bunch of "post roads." Rather, they had to figure out what to do with those roads that were already there but didn't come under the legal authority of any of the colonial authorities in place before the American Revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.