Page 13 The Sun Bay Paper July 19, 2024 Rebalancing Government The Government of our Founders has been in a struggle for political dominance with the modern “progressive movement.” Progressivism was originally popularized by democrat president Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s progressivism was a reform movement made up largely of leading intellectuals and social reformers. Wilson and followers felt the Constitution hadn’t “kept up with our changes of conditions.” They believed the idea of limited government and separation of powers were barriers to progress and should be removed. Their progressive philosophy was to create overwhelming government power, as long as it was for the “greater good,” rather than focusing on maximum individual liberty. A young Woodrow Wilson wrote, in 1887, that “…all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual right be put out of view, and that the state consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile…” These early progressives declared that their concept of government would require the best educated experts to accomplish their ambitious goals. Early progressives envisioned an “expert class” employed as the administrative arm of government, leaving for Congress the official duty of passing progressive legislation. This “expert class” of administrators was to be totally independent, objective, insulated from, and unsullied by, the “seamy underbelly” of day-to-day politics. Rather than assigning the president the job of organizing and leading these “experts,” it seems the ideal progressive presidential job description was as “chief legislator.” The reasoning for this was that the president is broadly selected, via the electoral college, by the entire electorate. They asked: Who else is closer to the “people”? Who else could better lead our legislators? That describes the mood of progressive leaders in the early 20th century. These early progressives didn’t accomplish their ideals, but their fingerprints are all over the “modern administrative state.” In 1984, the Supreme court decided what is commonly referred to as “Chevron Deference.” One tenet of that decision was that the Court should give “deference” to the administrative experts. That is to say, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous” regarding an issue, the courts should give deference to reasonable decisions made by the rule makers. Of course, if Congress has unambiguously stated their intent, there is no issue to be considered. Another result of Chevron was that these administrative agencies not only established the rules and regulations for legislation, they also were the enforcers, and in a dispute, it was decided by “tribunals” made up of employees of those agencies. Obviously influenced by Chevron, modern legislation is often passed by presenting general legislative intent, without full details. They leave it up to the administrative state to “fill in the blanks” and ”flesh out the details.” The often-heavy-handed rules and regulations resulted in a recent case argued before the Supreme Court which claimed Chevron Deference had led to these agencies exceeding their constitutional authority. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the 1984 opinion. It’s important to acknowledge this decision doesn’t reject the need for legislative rules properly applied and enforced. It’s important we remain faithful to having committed and talented agency administrators and regulators. My layman’s interpretation is that Congress must design legislation that is less ambiguous than has been the case since Chevron. They can no longer depend on the administrative state to “flesh out the substance” of legislation, and subsequently, enforce and adjudicate compliance. Simply stated, Congress relinquished too much authority. Congress is now more accountable for voting on unambiguously crafted legislation. This reversal by the Supreme Court doesn’t increase its power as some critics claim. The ruling admits the Court originally made a mistake, and effectively returns responsibility and accountability to Congress. However, the Court acknowledges that the judicial system regains its original responsibility of reviewing the constitutionality, application, and enforcement of laws of our land. Also, this ruling doesn’t diminish presidential power by giving congress more responsibility. It’s no secret that, as a practical matter, the Office of the President doesn’t control the several hundred federal agencies under the current governance structure. American governance is being brought back to the basics. It’s being rebalanced. The impact of this decision will be far-reaching, but it’ll be a long time before we find out what all the implications will be. Steve Bakke Visit my website at myslantonthings.com Last issue’s puzzle solution to ‘Puzzle Me’
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2ODE3