Politics

Congress spent decades transferring legislative and judicial powers to supposedly independent agencies. That was a violation of the nondelegation doctrine, but that’s another topic. Now, after the administrative state has accrued enormous powers, the court has given the president total control.

The constitutional answer is not to deny that the president controls the executive branch. The answer must be for Congress to reclaim the powers it should never have delegated.

Why can’t Republicans and Democrats work together to solve problems? If you want your representatives to fight for you and destroy those who disagree with you, I’m sorry, but consider the possibility that you’re the problem.

How can it possibly be ethical for a president to sue an agency he completely controls, and negotiate a settlement with an attorney general he appointed? That’s not a negotiation between adversarial parties—that’s a sweetheart deal—especially since Trump was not going to win any of those lawsuits or claims on their merits.

The Constitution gives states control over their own elections. Executive branch interference in state elections is a violation of separation of powers. If Washington attempts to influence or take control of state elections, the states should resist, for the sake of the Republic.

Now that you know what is really in the SAVE America Act, does it strike you as more important than anything else Congress could possibly be doing? It is worth ending the filibuster over?

Or is it possible that this is mostly an unnecessary intrusion on federalism designed to satisfy a president’s private obsession?

When the Texas Legislature returns to session in January, state lawmakers should look beyond re-litigating institutional homeownership and focus on changes at the state and local level that will truly make housing more available and affordable.

It was always unlikely that the Court was going to issue a sweeping decision overturning the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, because of the two axes we described earlier.

It’s important to remember that the Supreme Court is never the final say on any matter of controversy. The political process always has the final say. The political process can make, change or eliminate laws; amend the Constitution; elect the people who nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices; and in extreme circumstances, even impeach justices. Only the Court itself has asserted that it has the final say on constitutional issues.

The real problem is big government. The bigger the government, the more opportunities there are for fraud.

That’s why at IPI we argue for limited government, not better government. Better government is nice, sure, but also not very likely.

A brief look at two of the most famous American amnesties — Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers and Ronald Reagan’s 1986 immigration law — makes the distinction clear.

A fight is underway for the economic future of the United States, and some of our own politicians are siding with global competitors over domestic interests.