Administrative Law: Cruz or Trump?

The question is framed that way because we all know what the Bush or Rubio or Hildebeeste Administration will do (and the rest, such as Kasich, Fiorina, and Christie, don't count any more.)

So of the two, which is more likely to begin dismantling Administrative Law? 

And why is that important?

...As Thomas Jefferson had it, “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” There are no new fights in politics. 

Do we know this? In the United States, as in the rest of the Anglosphere, we seem to believe that we are the children of legislatures, not of kings; the beneficiaries of careful reasoning, not of iron will; the heirs to a safe political settlement immune to disintegration. That we are proud of our institutions is understandable. But our unshakeable confidence in their permanence is not. There is nothing written in the stars that secures in perpetuity our free system of laws. There are no stone tablets upon which legislative supremacy and judicial integrity are guaranteed against usurpation. Men’s hearts are no less ambitious this week than they were in the era of the pyramids....

After listing only a few of Obozo's "pen & phone" abominations, Cooke asks the question:

Are we at liberty?
 

Doh.  The answer is, decidedly, "NO!!"

 

But it's hardly just Obozo, albeit he is by far the most frequent and flagrant flyer on the Administrative Law airline.  Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Ike, and FDR were all happy participants in the "We are King!!" Constitutional demolition-derby.  We cannot forget Congress; they are also VERY happy to throw 'interpretation and guidelines' of their Acts into the administrative/regulatory morass.  It's a fine way to avoid responsibility:  "I didn't mean to vote for THAT" is the bleat from the lying sack of hot air--who certainly DID mean to "vote for that."  In fact, with only a few exceptions, Congress-slime voted for it and/or funded it (see, e.g., Paul Ryan's budget actions and compare it to his bleating and deceptive denials.)

 

Along comes Professor Hamburger.

 

...In his recent book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Columbia University professor Philip Hamburger suggests that we are not. The Constitution of the United States, Hamburger contends, represented a conscious attempt to banish from this country’s political structure a host of the insidious tools upon which monarchs and emperors had historically relied: among them prerogative lawmaking, legislative enabling acts, suspending and dispensing powers, and the investment of legislative, judicial, and executive functions into one body. Alarmingly, Hamburger concludes, these features have gradually found their way back into the system — not because the Constitution has been overthrown or because Washington, D.C., has been occupied by an invading force, but because over time we have constructed an unwarranted “fourth branch” in addition to the original three, and we have allowed the executive branch to take advantage of it....

The key phrase there is "...not because the Constitution has been overthrown..."

The rest of the essay is both enlightening and frightening.

But back to the question at the top:  of the two, Trump or Cruz, which one has consistently held the Constitution as the only guide for action by the President and the Senate?

Hmmmmm?