Excessive power in the hands of any politician, bureaucrat, or government employee is the source of pervasive malaise we feel today.  When any president issues executive orders or regulatory agency bureaucrats issue new regulations, we experience the unbridled, and unconstitutional, control of government over our individual freedom.

Thanks to Trump’s nomination of three justices to the Supreme Court, recent declarations by the highest court gave us tools to put government back in its place.  The practical implications of repeal of the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimond requires more work. 

Now, more than ever, we need a president and legislative body (Congress) that will bind their actions to the Constitution, who will not abuse the power of the office.  Whatever we think of Trump, he did reduce the regulatory burden a lot.  Sadly, he loaded up on executive orders, but at least he got half of it correct.  Next time around, let’s hope he gets both right: reduces executive orders and limits regulation.

When Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” she honestly described, and gave insight to, the inner workings of the bigger government minds — namely, that Congress does not have to fulfill its sworn duty to enact legislation because its members can abdicate their obligation to a bureaucrat or regulator.  This level of hubris in not limited to Democrats; Republicans abuse the privilege, too.  It is a regular occurrence in national politics.

To say it more clearly, many in the House and Senate prefer to abdicate their sworn duty of care for the citizen to non-elected bureaucrats, thereby giving anti-constitutional powers to regulators.  This ensures greater power to the administration and less freedom for the individual.

If one believes in central control, as does Pelosi, then it’s “good” to empower non-elected bureaucrats.  If one believes in the sanctity of the individual, and believes that government’s sole purpose is the protect the rights and freedom of the individual, then abdicating power to bureaucrats is wrong.

The Chevron repeal has two critical elements.  One, Congress must enact laws according to their defined duty in the Constitution.  They can no longer pass the buck to regulatory agencies.  They actually have to understand what they are doing.  Second, the court can now determine the constitutionality of every regulation enacted by bureaucrats.  In order to do so, all citizens must sue for relief from regulatory excess and get their case to the courts.  These two decisions (legislators legislate and court decide) are monumental, provided we citizens demand adherence. 

The following quote is from a Republican congressman.  His lack of understanding is a concern.  His assumption is that Congress should staff up to handle the new laws.  He would better serve his nation if he worked to reduce and repeal laws, rules, and regulations. 

We’re going to have to be much more specific in the lawmaking exercise. ... We’re going to have to have committees that have more staff in order to accommodate specific legislative writing.

Or consider Lauren Boebert on the Ross Kaminsky show, saying that “she generated 1,000 new jobs” through a bill.  No.  The small businessman who owns the company generated 1,000 new jobs.  She just removed an impediment. 

Some well intentioned Republicans and Democrats simply don’t understand the meaning and intent of our Constitution.  Theirs is the sin of not comprehending the consequences of their actions.  If politicians understood that the sole purpose of our government is to protect the individual, they could clearly differentiate their principle from the opposition, and thereby attract the massive independent vote.

The elite of the Democrats do understand the power inherent in bureaucratic control.  They actively seek ever greater central control, as demonstrated in the following quote from a ranking Democrat. 

As some members of Congress consider how to adapt to Chevron’s departure, several Democrat lawmakers have responded by looking for ways to restore Chevron deference to agencies.

Like Israel, we cannot negotiate or compromise with an entity whose stated objective is destruction of our principles.  The battle lines are drawn not between R and D, but between big and small government.  Between individual freedom and government control.  The battle is for the very principle that begat our nation.  “Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will never fail” (Sun Tzu, The Art of War). 

Jay Davidson is founder and CEO of a commercial bank.  He is a student of the Austrian School of Economics and a dedicated capitalist.  He believes there is a direct connection between individual right and responsibility, our Constitution, capitalism, and the intent of our Creator.

Image: Don Hankins via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 (cropped).