America may be facing a constitutional crisis, but not everyone is talking to.
Commentator is sounding the alarm The Department of Justice has lost its independence By working with Donald Trump’s political agenda. However, the constitution does not require the independence of the DOJ. It’s an executive body. Constitutional Law Give the President the power to enforce federal law. (Related: Megin Kelly says that the judge who “thinks him as president” is turning us towards a constitutional crisis.)
The crisis does not mean that the president has too much power over the executive branch. The crisis means that the executive body itself has too much power.
and this The crisis is nothing new. Remember when Attorney General Eric Holder called himself “I am.”The President’s Wingman”? President Biden has it Pressurized DOJ leadershiptoo. And what about then? Nixon purged the DOJ? That’s exactly what the “norms” of DOJ independence are. It is not the rule of law, and is not consistently followed.
What’s new is that liberals are upset. But “liberal” is not the Latin word “the federal government should fix everything.” If you believe in checks and balance, you should apply whether it is your part of the job, or especially if it is not.
Classical liberalism reminds us that a real crisis occurs when an administrative state is too large in its unidentified power. For a century, Congress has steadily delegated broad legal powers to executive bodies. Now, these agencies create rules, enforce them, and even resolve legal disputes. This is a constitutional crisis.
This crisis did not begin with Trump. It started with a new contract in which Congress began outsourcing tough decisions to the administrative department. And it continues as Americans have stopped questioning whether these powers should exist at all. The citizens were left to the winner, Takes Earl Power Grub. This is a cycle that only ends when you return to the first principle.
James Madison warned Federalist 47 The combination of legislative, enforcement and judicial powers “can be justified in the very definition of tyranny.” But it is now routine. DOJ Problem Guidance Document Binding legal effects. Prosecution is based on discretionary interpretation. And we’ll negotiate that.”Consent form“Restructuring public policy” – without clear statutory authority, public opinion, or meaningful judicial review.
This is governance by Fiat. And that’s becoming the norm. The constitutional question is not who is in charge of the enforcer. The constitution is literally the president’s work It’s about enforcing the law. The real crisis is that the executive body has assumed the power to properly belong to Congress.
Some defend the administrative state by pointing out complexity. Modern problems require expert solutions. However, expertise must inform the law. in West Virginia vs EPAthe Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot make major policy changes without clarifying Congress’ permission. in Loper Brightv. Raimondo,court It was overturned Chevron respectends the presumption that the institution, not the judge, should interpret the ambiguous law. That’s the beginning. But the real amendment must come from Congress.
Lawmakers must stop halting tough decisions and begin to regain their constitutional role. One model already exists Regulatory Accountability Acta bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Senator Warren and Paul. Congress must periodically reapprove key regulations. That idea must also be extended to the DOJ permissions. Discretionary enforcement authority must have an expiration date. A consent order must face meaningful judicial review. And Congress should hold a real oversight hearing Political theatre.
Yes, this requires Congress to work harder. And yes, that might mean Few campaign time. However, this system was not designed for convenience. Designed for accountability.
Donald Trump has pledged to reduce the size of the federal government. He targets several institutions, such as the Ministry of Education. But he does much less to restrain the institutions that can advance his own goals. The true test of principle is whether they are willing to limit their power, even if it is their own.
Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, if you believe in a limited government, prove it by showing restraint when you’re in power. It calls for sunset clauses, judicial review, and actual legislative oversight. The next time the seesaw tilts, it may not shake in your favor. The Constitution was not written to empower the winners. It was written to hold everyone back. That’s how freedom survives.
Seth C. Oranburg is a professor of law at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce Law School and director of organization, business and market programs at NYU’s Classical Liberal Institute.
The opinions and opinions expressed in this commentary are the views of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
