Posted on 05/26/2013 3:12:36 AM PDT by Jacquerie
There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.
The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.
The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Correct.
This is why I have always opposed term limits. The Forth Branch barely listen as it is, what happens when they make the bosses temporary?
Yeah, I was also surprised to see Turley write this.
I think you are referring to the ‘Townsend Plan’. Dr. Townsend was all over the USA plugging his ‘plan’ in the late 1930s and he was getting large crowds. The catch for older folks was they had to spend the money to invigorate the economy or they were not eligible for the next months dole. These were the days of the ‘great depression’ and all kinds of proposals including FDR’s many programs. It seems to me that the plan was to give all older folks $250 each month with the condition to spend it. WWII came along and interest in the idea went down the drain.
The fish rots from the head.
The permanent bureaucracy in DC is liberal and votes Obama. Its hiring policies slant gay/minority/black/female. Those are your administrative rulers in DC. AKA — The managerial class. The nomenclatura
Every freeper should read this article 10 times
Everything is backwards now. The states are bystanders in government now, instead of drivers of government.
Democrats tried using states like Colorado and New York to pass silly gun control laws just to boost Obama's political position, not because it was a necessity and desire of the people of those states.
-PJ
“But then he got shot by someone who felt differently.”
Evidence supports the theory that Huey was killed accidently by his body guards and the doctor who was trying to talk to him took the fall for it.
That elected officials hand over their sworn obligations to bureaucratic civil service people is also rampant at the state and local government levels. These politicians are onto the catch that their election depends upon these ‘civil servants’ who have embedded themselves and friends into the government. That civil servants can collectively by personal choice shut government down by unionization is a demonstrated fact of life.
The natural ‘enemy’ of a bloated bureaucracy is the people who resent paying for it... that’s us. This just keeps getting more and more charming...
Ideally the 17th Amendment gets repealed plus make a Senate term 4 years
Turley, like Dershowitz, sometimes strikes a libertarian stance. I wouldn’t call him a koolade drinker.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress
Scotus is less and less inclined to veto national laws, AND regulations, citing "heavy deference."
Meanwhile, courts yank state laws as if they were belly button lint. This would not happen if the States ran the Senate. There would be zero chance the Senate would consent to judges hostile to the 10th Amendment.
We agree on the problem, where we differ is on the solution.
Francis Townsend. He was offering senior citizens a certain sum- the one you mentioned sounds close- as a sort of economic stimulus.
Virginia is a perfect example of the consequences of the 17th amendment. If the house of delegates were to select 2 senators, BOTH would be staunch conservatives.
It is my understanding that the agencies develop the regulations that are then interpreted by rules. The rules are often actually written after proper study, by contractors.
This hidden mega bureaucracy of contractor rule writers is huge.
Let’s start the next form of government - Independent - Going back to what the founding fathers developed - limited government.
It relieves them of responsibility to the problems they cause.
I said Too lazy, I think it’s about the same thing.
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.