Tuesday, December 29, 2015

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?


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

GOA Endorses Ted Cruz for President
Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Senator Ted Cruz for the office of President of the United States.

While there are many candidates in the race, Ted Cruz is the only one who has completed and returned the GOA presidential survey on the Second Amendment.

Cruz has been a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights as a U.S. Senator, and he will continue to defend our gun rights from the Oval Office.

Ted Cruz has promised gun owners that, as President, he will remove the United States as a signatory nation to the anti-gun Arms Trade Treaty -- a U.N. treaty that would fully implement a system of gun owner registration if ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Ted Cruz has promised gun owners that he will repeal anti-gun Executive Orders that circumvent Congress and veto anti-gun legislation if it reaches his desk.

As a U.S. Senator, Ted Cruz has demonstrated a willingness to fight for our Second Amendment rights. He is working with GOA on legislation to repeal the Obama Administration’s gun ban that is (and will) affect millions of military veterans and senior citizens.

He has opposed efforts to reward millions of illegal aliens with citizenship and voting rights, given that the majority of them are anti-gunners who have ignored and flouted our laws.

He has cosponsored legislation to allow concealed carry reciprocity for law-abiding gun owners. This legislation (S. 498) is of special importance to GOA members and activists. It is one of our chief priorities in Congress.

This election season is quickly becoming the “year of the outsider.” And to that end, Ted Cruz has been able to “speak truth to power” as a member of the U.S. Senate.

It was Senator Cruz who in July of 2015, blasted the Senate leadership for lying to fellow Republicans and the American people. Not only that, just a couple of months prior, he stood on the Senate floor and asked “what exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority?”

Cruz blistered the leadership for failing to block the confirmation of President Obama’s executive and judicial nominees. In particular, Cruz noted that the Republican leadership could have -- and should have -- blocked the confirmation of anti-gun Loretta Lynch for Attorney General.

It’s obvious that Senator Cruz follows the Constitution, not a political party.

It was Senator Cruz who led the filibuster fight in 2013 against funding the anti-gun ObamaCare law, which will facilitate the disarmament of millions of gun owners once the law is fully implemented.

While there are many problems with ObamaCare, Cruz recognizes how computerizing the medical records of millions of gun owners will allow the federal government to troll those names and add millions of honest gun owners to the NICS system -- in the same way that the Obama Administration is currently using medical information to disarm military veterans, and proposing to do the same with senior citizens.

Ted Cruz has promised to sign a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare as President. To that end, he has already introduced S. 339, which would repeal the health care law “as if such Act had not been enacted.”

Finally, as we said above, one of Ted Cruz’ chief concerns as Senator has been the creeping “judicial tyranny” in our nation. We need a President who is going to rein in the courts by appointing judges who reject the notion that our Constitution is a “living and breathing” document that can be twisted to support any crackpot agenda that anti-gun liberals like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi advocate.

We need a stalwart defender of the Second Amendment in the White House, and Ted Cruz will help shoulder the burden of fighting against the gun grabbers dedicated to eviscerating the Second Amendment.


Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America PVF