The search for power, and using it to control the country

November 11, 2025

Since the colonies became fed up with the heavy-handed rule of the British crown more than 250 years ago, a government design opposite to that arrangement has been the goal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people became the dominant theory. And that idea was the basis for our constitution and the government that it created.

But the benefit of that concept has gradually faded through the years, leading to decades of actions that weakened that system, and has taken control out of the hands of the people, and put a growing degree of power in the hands of those serving in government.

Today we see a larger and more controlling government body than our Founders could ever have imagined would evolve from their system.

The tri-partite government consisting of a legislative branch, an administrative branch and a judicial branch, each independent of the other two, and no single branch being more powerful than the others, has been weakened.

Our federal government has grown in the number of administrative departments and employees. Along with that growth has come more and more interference with the freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution as belonging to the people, and protected by the government, not provided by it.

In many cases, the growth of government and the accompanying loss of personal freedom that resulted may have been intended to accomplish good things. And perhaps some good did result. However, the weakening of the system is ultimately a greater harm than the relatively small degree of good that may have been gained.

For example, what one may now do with their property is now controlled by volumes of laws and regulations from all levels of government. If, for example, you have a pond or some small water feature, you likely will have to get government approval to change it, or do away with it. Other similar restrictions apply over almost everything.

This negative change in how our government operates is dealt with by Mark Levin in his new book On Power. Levin, a constitutional lawyer, author and syndicated talk show host, comments in his chapter titled, “On Negative Power,” the following: “Given the ubiquity of the federal government and its reach into virtually all areas of society, this is an enormous betrayal of representative government by the supposed representative branches.”

He notes that for a century or so the three branches have been involved in “the construction of a massive administrative state, the contours of which are elusive and seemingly boundless, and constructed without a constitutional foundation.”

And he cites the failure of the judicial branch to call a halt to this development and legitimization of the fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy, which is not in the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 100-plus years, 10 new federal departments have been created:
1903 - the Department of Commerce and Labor, which was separated in 1913 into two departments: the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor
1953 - the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1965 - the Department of Housing and Urban Development
1966 - the Department of Transportation
1977 - the Department of Energy
1979 - the Department of Education
1980 - the Department of Health and Human Services
1989 - the Department of Veteran’s Affairs
2002 - the Department of Homeland Security

About this growth and movement away from our governmental design, Levin notes that the failure of the judiciary to intervene, as it can legally do, has given this movement an appearance of legitimacy. “The delegation of representative government to a non-representative, ever-expanding bureaucratic behemoth is, by intent and design, the overthrow of actual representative and consensual government,” he wrote.

“As a result, the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy hold enormous power over the people by literally removing their participation and consent.”

Recognition of the rise in bureaucratic power and authority, and the accompanying loss of individual freedom, is not a new thing. And efforts to do an about-face and restore our republic to its original status are not unheard of, but so far have not been strong enough and not very successful.

President Donald Trump and his administration are making efforts to straighten things out a bit. But that is a long and steep road.

A White House Fact Sheet, released last February, focuses on the idea of dramatically reducing “the size of the Federal Government, while increasing its accountability to the American people,” and ending “ineffective government programs that empower government without achieving measurable results.”

As with everything Trump says and does, criticism and resistance abound. The criticism and resistance of the opposing political forces is expected. And they do not hesitate to exaggerate and mis-represent what is happening. But resistance has also surfaced in the judiciary, reinforcing what Levin said about that. Actions by federal district court judges, many of which have been determined to have been inappropriate, are interfering with Trump’s efforts.

And then there is the criminal activity in much of the resistance. Interfering with federal law enforcement in their efforts to arrest and deport illegal criminal aliens, for example, is not an approved peaceful protest, it is against the law.

Moving toward a limited and cost-effective federal government

March 18, 2025

Our country is currently experiencing many problems, and some are quite serious. As President Donald Trump’s opponents constantly remind us, he has not yet corrected these problems, even though he has been in office for almost two months.

But seriously, folks, we do have some real problems. And what the most serious of them is depends to a large degree upon whom you ask about that. Some of them are: the national debt, inflation and the resulting high prices, illegal immigration, military strength, big government.

But in whatever order you rank these problems, none of them can be cured overnight; they will all take time to be worked out. That amount of time will be shortened if everyone involved will work together for that purpose. And perhaps that is the most complicated problem of all.

Of those many problems, one that has attracted much attention, and one that is actively being addressed, is the size, cost, and activities of the federal government. Due to the way things have been going for decades, we have become saddled with a national debt of $35.46 trillion, as of fiscal year 2024, and this figure is rising every second. As of last week, it was $36.22 trillion. And the impact of that is enormous: the interest on the national debt is billions of dollars per day.

Our government is too big, it costs too much to operate, its reach has grown far too broad, and it has expanded its power and authority well beyond its originally designed limits. Almost every year the government has a sizeable budget deficit, which adds more to the national debt.

And not only are we spending far too much, billions of those dollars are being spent improperly. Many decisions on spending are being made not by Congress, as is the constitutional process, but by unelected bureaucrats, many with partisan motives.

The entire operation of the government and its spending practices are currently being examined by the newly created and temporary Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Despite the fact that the people pay taxes on what they earn, on what they spend, annually on property they own, and the Social Security payments they receive, and businesses pay taxes on their operation, the country still spends more than it takes in.

In 1789, several years after the creation of the country, there were only three federal departments: State, War, and Treasury. Today, there are 15 departments. The government has five times the departments it had in the early years. And there are fair points being made that we don’t need some of them, and that others need to be downsized and/or merged.

One example of this is that we don’t need USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and that its work can be done by the State Department. Another is the Department of Education. Its job can be done by the individual states, who handled it before the department was created in 1979.

Liberal criticism of the Trump administration contains the scare tactic that Trump wants to create a dictatorship. That would mean a government that controls everything. But that situation has been building for many years, as evidenced by the increase of government departments and the authority they now exercise.

And what Trump is aiming for is reducing the size, cost and broad authority of the federal government. This is being done by DOGE and other efforts of the administration.

With our oversized federal bureaucracy, we are dependent upon other countries for some of the goods that our people need and want the most. And some of them are things that were once produced here, or that could be.

Due to various causes, many of those things were moved out of the U.S., and for the most part, the reason is that government interfered with domestic production by increased regulations that made production more difficult and more expensive. This caused production of some to be moved to other countries, and made foreign products more necessary.

Why shouldn’t a country as great as America not produce the things its people need and want at home? Why should we be at the mercy of other countries, some of whom love to make us suffer, when we can reorganize our country to produce nearly all of the things we need and want?

By appealing to companies that have moved out of the U.S. and encouraging them to return, and by attracting companies that have not been located here to move here, great things will happen. Thousands of new jobs will be created, and the prices on many items will be better. 

We can act to make domestic products more desirable than foreign made products, if some of them are threatening our own products.

Imagine a country that has an abundance of good jobs creating needed and wanted products. And one with a balanced budget, enough income to allow lowering the national debt, and with national spending low enough to allow a tax system with low tax rates that enable the people to keep more of their earnings.

All of this is possible. But the road to that future is not an easy one.

Trump’s efforts to downsize government has Democrats going crazy

March 4, 2025

The left’s attitude toward President Donald Trump is — unsurprisingly — unchanged since he won reelection last November. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll shows Democrats dislike everything Trump does. Imagine that! 

It seems that anything that can be said regarding Trump to make him or his actions look bad is approved and encouraged.

Here is one example: “President Donald Trump announced late Sunday that he was naming former Fox News personality Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, the latest in a series of controversial picks for high-profile law enforcement positions,” as reported by Politico. And, another source referred to Bongino merely as a podcaster.

However, these sources of important information that people depend upon neglected to tell the public that Bongino had served 4 years as a New York police officer and 11 years as a U.S. Secret Service agent during the tenure of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has much more substantive law enforcement credentials than a Fox News personality or a podcaster. 

This is a good example how the left “sort of” reports things, using negative and/or derogatory information while leaving out relevant information in reporting on the Trump administration, its personnel, and its actions.

And it’s not just the news media that are indulging in this behavior.

The left likes to think of itself as open-minded, inclusive, tolerant and peace-loving. However, the extreme portion of the left pursues hatred and intolerance as normal elements in its dealings with, and references to Trump supporters and Trump administration officials. And since voters voted against the radical left last November, this behavior is becoming more mainstream.

Down in Louisiana an LSU law professor criticized both Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry using vulgar language in class. A few days later, in response to student complaints, the professor was suspended by LSU pending an investigation into the complaints.

At a recent meeting of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Florida Democrat Rep. Maxwell Frost called President Trump “the grifter in chief,” and referred to Elon Musk as “President Musk.” 

At a town hall held by a Republican Congressman near Atlanta, Georgia recently, he was repeatedly interrupted with shouts and jeers. A similar result was found in a town hall in La Grande, Ore., where the audience booed and yelled. A Wisconsin Republican Congressman was booed after saying that Trump has done “some very good things.” 

In response to the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), one person said, “this is all a horror show,” and another person said that “Democrats should treat this as a war.” And California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters screamed, “We have got to tell Elon Musk that nobody elected your [expletive deleted].”

Continuing her rant, Waters added, “We’re in a crisis in this country because Trump and Elon Musk and the billionaires have decided they’re going to put us all in our place. They’re going to run this country. They’re going to make sure that they take over everything.”

"This is what the start of dictatorship looks like," Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar said. "When you gut the U.S. Constitution and you install yourself as the sole power, that is how dictators are made."

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is trying to protect illegal aliens from being deported. This is a high priority for the Trump administration, especially for the violent criminals among the millions of illegals. “Believe it or not, in America EVERYONE has rights,” AOC wrote. “Citizen or not, we all should know our rights to protect ourselves and others from illegal search & seizure.” Even she ought to understand that the one right they do not have is to be here illegally.

Whether these Democrats actually do not know what they are talking about, or are deliberately distorting the truth for political gain, is an open question. Nothing seems to be more important to them than damaging Trump and his policies, the things that tens of millions of Americans support. Trump collected 77 million votes and 312 Electoral votes, when only 270 are required to be elected.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the Democrats who constantly complain about how “our democracy” is being treated, loudly demonstrate how little they understand about how “our democracy” — our constitutional republic — is supposed to work?

It seems to puzzle them, and in fact, set off their alarms, that by the U.S. Constitution the President of the United States of America, who was elected by a majority of the voters in the nation, controls the Administrative Branch. All of the people in the Administrative Branch work for the President, and they do not require Congressional approval or any approval outside that of the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that Democrats want their party to moderate their positions. And for the good of the people that those in Congress are elected to serve, this is a sensible idea.

The problem is that by moderating their talk and behavior they must abandon their political goals, which are more important to them than restoring and maintaining the nation as created by the Founders.

That is what Trump, Musk and the rest of the administration is working toward.

Our government spends too much, and taxes the people too much

April 7, 2024

Several weeks ago, as the April tax filing deadline neared, Facebook featured some comments about how Americans feel about taxes.

Among those comments were these: 

** The biggest scam in life: Paying taxes on money you make; taxes on money you spend; and taxes on things you own that you already paid taxes on with already taxed money.

** Paying taxes in the USA is like having a never-ending car payment on a car that won't run.

** If your country has enough money to give to illegals, your taxes are too high.

** If they can pay all these student loans, they can stop taxes on seniors!

Clearly, taxes are not popular with the American people, despite the need for the government to collect taxes to pay its bills.

Founder Benjamin Franklin in the very early days of the republic said the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. But he wasn't talking about income taxes, because they did not exist then.

In order to help pay for the Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. Tax rates were 3 percent on income exceeding $600 and less than $10,000, and 5 percent on income exceeding $10,000. But this tax didn’t last very long. There were other income taxes of short duration.

The income tax we pay today came into existence in 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. It was a tax on incomes of both individuals and corporations. 

As much as people dislike the taxes they must pay, they generally understand that taxes are necessary for governments at the federal, state, and local levels to operate. And here in America, with our commitment to personal freedom, those governments are expected to be lean, efficient, not overbearing, and not overly expensive.

On the federal level, those characteristics are not being followed as our Founders expected.

USA Facts tells us that the “federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (FY2023). About half was collected through individual income taxes, while 37 percent was through payroll taxes. Other revenue sources included corporate income taxes, customs duties, and sales taxes.”

However, the report continues, the “federal government spent almost $6.2 trillion in FY 2023, including funds distributed to states, Medicare, Social Security, defense and veterans, transfers to states, interest on the debt, and aid to individuals such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and refundable tax credits accounted for 90 percent of spending.”

Worldometer online said that “the current population of the United States of America is 341,531,428 as of Sunday, May 5, 2024.” That’s about $13,000 in federal income collected per person. Spending, however, ran up to more than $18,000 per person.

Today, the National Debt stands at roughly $34 trillion. In 2006 the National Debt was around $8 trillion. A steady increase put it at about $23 trillion in 2020. And then the government stepped on the gas and the National Debt soared by $11 trillion in just 4 years to today’s $34 trillion. As a result, the per person amount to clear the National Debt today is more than $99,500.

The federal government is not as designed: small and limited in function. Today, it is too big, too expensive, not very efficient, and often quite over-bearing.

There are 15 executive departments and hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, employing approximately 1,427,700 federal employees, not including the military. Given the limited government philosophy of the Founders, many/most of these are not appropriate.

Which ones are needed? Here are a few of those executive branch departments that are sensible and needed: Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of the Treasury. While others may function well and sometimes provide positive guidance, are they really appropriate under the founding principles?

Why do we need a federal Department of Education to tell states how to educate the young? Why do we need the Environmental Protection Agency to tell private land owners what they can and cannot do with their own property? Why do we need a Department of Labor to tell businesses how they must operate? Under our system of federalism, these and other functions should be under control of the states, not the federal government.

In many of these departments, agencies or commissions unelected bureaucrats set rules in place with the force of law, complete with penalties. However, they are not approved by Congress, the law-making body. These bureaucrats tell the people that they work for, and who pay their salaries, what they can and cannot do, and can render punishment for them if they do not comply.

Over the decades the limited government philosophy of the Founders has fattened up and grown far beyond what it was designed to be, and what is needed and appropriate.

With every such step, the freedom of Americans becomes a little bit more limited. And if this concept continues much longer, America will no longer be the Land of the Free.

Our government has grown beyond what it was intended to be

December 12, 2023

After the Revolutionary War when the Founders were working on a governing document, they worked hard to not only develop a good design, but a design that protected the people from a government that could control everything they did and thought.

The design they came up with was spectacular, creating a nation governed by a philosophy of limited government and individual freedom. It had three co-equal branches: the legislative branch to pass needed and beneficial laws; an administrative branch to run the country and enforce the laws; and a judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws.

The design was not perfect, but included a mechanism to amend the Constitution to make it better. Of course, the success of the design depended upon those working in government: the employees and appointed and elected officials. It was expected that everyone involved would understand and support the design.

But, as fate would have it, some politicians and bureaucrats have their own ideas about what should be done, and how. Consequently, the government has grown in size and power, well beyond what the Founders imagined. Still, despite the excesses of the politicians and bureaucrats, many of whom were honestly trying to make things better, the government has grown too big and too powerful.

Columnist George Will in a recent column provided some insight into where we are, discussing a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that could be a start to changing things back toward the original design. The column started with a quote from James Madison in Federalist 47. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

He then went on to discuss the case, but used an example of bureaucratic/administrative overreach, and how such behavior weakens what was and could again be the best governmental design ever.

The example he used describes the typical enforcement activities of some federal agencies, in this case the Federal Trade Commission, as published in the Harvard Law Review.

“The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. 

“If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semiautonomous Commission administrative law judge. 

“If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. 

“But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.”

In this case, and many other similar instances, even if the rules in force have been assumed to be appropriate, or found to be appropriate by the courts, the behavior of the government agency in being the only party prosecuting the rule breaking, and deciding whether things are right or not, is more than just a little heavy-handed.

This is precisely what Madison was referring to in the Federalist article. When the government makes the rules, adjudicates the rules, decides the outcome and also the penalties, the people are not being fairly or constitutionally dealt with. 

In a government set up to be fair in its dealings with the people, it is clearly not in the best interest of the people when the politicians and bureaucrats work under the table to increase their power over the people, the very people they are elected and hired to serve.

In the example cited, and likely many others we may not have heard about, what is the difference between life in the United States, and in some third world or authoritarian regime? Realistically, we are not there yet, but have been walking in that direction.

What we find and have observed for a long time is a strong effort on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to engage in what former President Barack Obama promised during his 2008 campaign: “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” 

There have been efforts to pack the Supreme Court; do away with the Electoral College; replace the local and state government control of elections with federal control of elections; move away from dependable energy sources; end our energy independent status; heavily restrict or ban citizen gun ownership; dictate what type of light bulbs and other conveniences and appliances we may have; and effectively open our southern border to all who want to enter, for whatever ends they may seek.

Our country is weaker and further from its original design than in many decades. Or, perhaps, ever.

We should embrace and build on America’s traditional values

Today’s political atmosphere is toxic. It is filled with hard feelings, bad intentions, exaggeration, insults, misunderstandings, and more. People on one side of the political spectrum often automatically write off people on the other side simply because they hold different opinions.

It is difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about the differences, as some are offended or angered with the mere prospect of coming face to face with ideas that are different than their own. In this atmosphere, details get lost in the noise, and the essence of the broad philosophies of each side, which need to be discussed, compared and evaluated, lie there ignored while the battle rages.

Those on the political right, conservatives, hold to a set of principles that should not scare or anger anyone. They are practical concepts to which our country has subscribed for many decades, such as: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and strong national defense.

Here, stated more broadly, are those conservative principles:

1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.

3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.

4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.

5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.

6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.

7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.

8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation.

9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.

10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.

11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.

12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.

13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.”

Contrary to the common narrative, conservatives who hold these principles are not racist. They are not xenophobic, or homophobic, or sexist, or white-nationalistic. Those mischaracterizations come from political antagonists who either don’t make the effort to understand conservative principles, and instead react emotionally. Others deliberately twist their meanings in an effort to delegitimize them, hoping to demonize the opposition and generate support for their own rebellious ideas.

Those 14 principles, “True North: The Principles of Conservatism,” were articulated by The Heritage Foundation, and have in their favor ages of proven success. It was upon these steadfast, common sense principles that the United States of America was established, and upon which it became the great nation that it is.

Rather than working to further improve the American system, an opposition force works to tear it down and replace these solid, proven principles with historically unsuccessful and dangerous principles of socialist and communist systems that have failed wherever they have been tried.

Democrat socialists won’t admit that socialism is their goal, saying that they really don’t want full-blown socialism, only certain desirable parts of it.

But socialistic methods are a slippery slope, and once a nation is well down the slope, escape is virtually impossible. For a real life, contemporary example, review the recent history of Venezuela.

During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America, and one of the most stable democracies in the Americas. Then came the election of President Hugo Chávez, who propagated "socialism for the 21st century," which was about establishing liberty, equality, social justice, and solidarity. 

Today, Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.

Draining the swamp: restoring proper operation to federal agencies

It is a difficult task trying to determine which federal agency has done the most damage to the country and its citizens. A very strong candidate for this dishonor, if not a shoo-in for it, is the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.

The EPA’s sins run from declaring mud puddles on private property to be under federal control through the Waters of the United States rule to picking winners and losers and deciding to shut down an entire industry based upon a manic fear of CO2, a compound that is essential for animal and plant life.

A good rule for all of us to remember is, “all things in moderation.” If that is a good rule for CO2, as the EPA asserts, it is also a necessary rule for regulations. Too many regulations really gum things up, stunt our economy, punish taxpayers and businesses, create uncertainty, and the EPA may well be the king in that regard, although the IRS is a strong contender.

President Donald Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been charged with corralling that agency, and he sat down with The Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey at Heritage’s President’s Club meeting to discuss that process.

First up, the topic of “sue and settle” and how that process amounts to backdoor rulemaking.  An article on Forbes online describes the process as follows: “’Sue and Settle’ practices, sometimes referred to as ‘friendly lawsuits,’ are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered ‘consent decrees’ are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors.” Read that again, carefully.

“Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.”

Pruitt noted an additional irregularity. “But then here’s the kicker: They (the agency) would pay attorneys fees to the group that sued them.” So the group is effectively making “comfortable” rules and the government pays for their lawyers.

Acknowledging the fraudulent nature and duplicity of this process, Pruitt said, “My job is to enforce the laws as passed by whom? Congress. They give me my authority. That’s the jurisdictional responsibilities that I have, and when litigation is used to regulate … that’s abusive. That’s wrong.”

A bit later Bluey asked about the Waters of the United States rule. “[P]eople all over the country have no idea today where federal jurisdiction begins and ends under that 2015 rule,” Pruitt responded. He was in Salt Lake City with Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and an Army Corps of Engineers representative about two months ago when the representative pointed to a thermal drainage ditch and said, “Scott, that is a water of the United States.”

“It’s not going to be anymore,” Pruitt said. “That’s really the challenge here—that you had so much confusion and uncertainty about what waters were in [and] what waters were out.”

Next, Bluey turned to the Clean Power Plan, asking Pruitt where he sees the EPA going with this regulation.

“It’s not the job of the EPA to say to the utility company in any state of the country, you should choose renewables over natural gas or coal,” he answered. “We need fuel diversity in the general electricity. We need more choices, not less.”

And then the common sense answer that has been absent for eight or more years: “No agency at the federal level should use their coercive power to force business utility companies to take those fuel sources away. They should be making it on cost, stability, and I would say resiliency of the grid.”

Hallelujah!

Turning to the day-to-day operation of the agency, Pruitt talked about the advisory bodies that provide input into decisions and policy. “The scientists who make up these bodies, and there are dozens and dozens of these folks, over the years those individuals as they’ve served those capacities, guess what has also happened? They’ve received moneys through grants, and sometimes substantial moneys through grants,” he said.

“I think what’s most important at the agencies,” he continued, “is to have scientific advisers who are objective, independent minded, providing transparent recommendations to me as the administrator and to our office on the decisions that we’re making on the efficacy of rules that we’re passing to address environmental issues.

“If we have individuals that are on those boards that are receiving money from the agency, sometimes going back years and years to the tune of literally tens of millions of dollars, over time,” he said, “that to me causes questions on the independence and the veracity of the transparency of the recommendations that are coming our way.”

This pro-Constitution, commonsense rule of law perspective is one that all heads of federal agencies ought to share, and what the concept of constitutional government demands.

After many years of bureaucratic excesses, frequently spurred by political bias, it is refreshing and it inspires confidence to see Scott Pruitt and other administration officials at last focusing on proper management of the government we pay for, but which has so often gone off the rails into ideological self-service.

Restoring government’s three branches to Constitutional balance

The unequaled genius of the Founders produced an original form of government that included a system of checks and balances to maintain its integrity. That design has been substantially abandoned, and all three branches of government are guilty of creating this situation.

The Legislative Branch is now weaker and the Executive Branch now stronger due to malfeasance by the Congress and the eager acceptance of extra-constitutional power by administrative agencies. Likewise, failure of the duty to the Constitution’s original language and intent has increased power to the Judicial Branch.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the authority to pass laws. But through laziness and other misfeasance through the years Congress has abdicated much of that duty by allowing administrative agencies to pass rules that are in effect laws. That is how the EPA is able to implement a rule that absurdly allows it to tell a farmer in Iowa that the drainage ditch along his dirt road is a waterway that falls under federal control.

That is also how the Department of Education justifies using SWAT teams to break down the doors of people because their education loan payments are past due. There are dozens of other examples of this unconstitutional over-reach by federal agencies.

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee confirms this unconstitutional transfer of power, and blames lawmakers, saying, “We are not, in fact, the victims, we are the perpetrators.” He went on to tell The Daily Signal that this was done to make Congress’ job easier, because it is less politically risky to let others do the lawmaking through the rule-making function.

Speaking at the Federalist Society’s 5^th annual Executive Branch Review Conference, Lee talked about his efforts to combat this situation through the Article One Project. He outlined three pieces of legislation designed to address the problem.

The REINS Act would require both Congress and the president to approve any administrative rule with an economic impact of $100 million or more. Lee said that ultimately, “Congress would be responsible for every major regulation that went into effect.” The Act has passed the House, but not the Senate.

The second measure is the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA), which Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe told The Daily Signal would reverse the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision that established the “Chevron doctrine” that “determined that courts must defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as their interpretation is deemed ‘reasonable.’”

“This bill would end the dysfunctional status quo that tilts the legal playing field in favor of bureaucrats,” Lee said. SOPRA passed the House last year, and Ratcliffe has introduced it again this year.

Currently, federal agencies use funds received through fines, fees, and proceeds from legal settlements at their own discretion, thereby avoiding the formal appropriations process, and escaping congressional oversight. It may also encourage agency action aimed at raising funds. The Agency Accountability Act will require funds acquired by agencies outside the appropriations process to be turned over to the Treasury.

Lee commented, “You see the Constitution has this pesky little provision that … Congress has the power and the responsibility to direct spending of federal dollars. The power of the purse is one of Congress’ most potent tools for controlling bureaucracies.”

The Judicial Branch also has strayed from the straight and narrow path created by the Constitution through increasingly liberal interpretation of the language and intent of the Constitution and federal laws, citing how society has changed over the years as the need to reinterpret them. Amending them is too slow and difficult, you see.

Carson Holloway, author of “Hamilton versus Jefferson in the Washington Administration,” explains another liberal judicial technique. President Donald Trump’s revised Executive Order temporarily halting travel to the U.S. from several countries with ties to terrorism was found unconstitutional by some lower courts, which agreed with opponents that the order actually bans Muslim immigration.

The order does no such thing, Holloway notes, since it applies to only a fraction of Muslim countries, and that the lower courts reacted not to the language of the order, but to things Trump said during the campaign. In other words, the courts abandoned interpreting actual written language in favor of reading the president’s mind, and finding a hidden agenda there.

Looking back in history to the days of Chief Justice John Marshall, Holloway explains that while Marshall acknowledged both the letter and spirit of the law, Marshall said, “the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words,” not the imagination of judges.

Holloway said, “rule of law does not mean rule by judges acting on their whim,” but that it requires “judicial modesty.” And Marshall noted in Fletcher v. Peck that “an inquiry into the subjective motives of the lawmaker quickly leads judges into a realm in which there are no clear, compelling standards of judgment.”

Holloway concludes with the hope that the Appellate Court “follows the path of judicial modesty … and not the endlessly debatable intentions that may lie behind” the order.

Our government is badly out of balance, and a quick return to constitutional government and originalism in the courts is essential.

Strong resistance to federal overreach is overdue, but growing

For four years, an organic farmer in Indiana was harassed when he supplied raw milk to the local organic co-ops. What prompted this action was what the Goshen News reported in 2010 as an outbreak of campylobacter bacterial infections “that might be traceable to the Forest Grove Dairy.”

Obviously, if bad milk makes people sick, health departments need to be involved, however, farm owner David Hochstetler told the paper at the time that health departments had not visited the farm to investigate, and he was never found to have sold bad milk.

Despite never having his product tied to the outbreak, Hochstetler’s farm was subjected to frequent inspections and harassment by two federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Justice, actions believed to be aimed at closing down the dairy farm. And then Elkhart County Sheriff David Rogers responded to Hochstetler’s complaint, realized there was no justification for such harassment, and stepped in and blocked this over-reach from the federal government.

Rogers wrote to the DOJ telling them he would take action, including “removal or arrest” of federal agents, if the inspectors came without a signed warrant specifying probable cause and giving a clear reason justifying their invasive searches.

Rogers explained in the local newspaper, “My research concluded that no one was getting sick from this distribution of this raw milk. It appeared to be harassment by the FDA and the DOJ, and making unconstitutional searches, in my opinion. The farmer told me that he no longer wished to cooperate with the inspections of his property.”

You may be wondering why federal agencies were involved in what clearly was a local/state issue. This is not unusual.

The Daily Caller reported a year ago on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waters of the United States rule that critics say “would allow the agency to regulate waterways previously not under federal jurisdiction, including puddles, ditches and isolated wetlands.”

The EPA may be the agency that has done the most damage to the U.S. economy and business operations with its over-zealous and intrusive mandates, concerning such things as incandescent light bulbs, toilets that use “too much” water, limiting wood burning and charcoal use, and now extending its tentacles to regulating temporary water collections on private property.

Many states are growing tired of these overreaches. A bill introduced in the Indiana State Legislature reflects that state’s frustration. The bill nullifies all of the EPA’s regulations and places all environmental protection authority with the state’s Department of Environmental Management. And 24 states, including Indiana, have filed a lawsuit in federal court to strike down the new source performance standards affecting new coal burning power plants.

The EPA’s costly excesses and other excessive behaviors by administrative agencies trample all over the plain language the Founders deliberately wrote into the U.S. Constitution through the Tenth Amendment, which states: “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, it is the wont of federal bureaucracies to grow like weeds, often with the tacit approval of our elected representatives in Congress, and not infrequently at their behest. Bureaucrats isolate themselves into protected enclaves extending their reach beyond that which is appropriate. They often do serious harm to their bosses, the American people, usually without accountability for their misdeeds.

Having escaped the heavy hand of King George only a few years before, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a document establishing a new government for the United States that could not evolve to be as oppressive as Mother England had been; a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It was no accident that the phrase “the people” is mentioned five times in the Bill of Rights.

The Legal Information Institute of the Cornell University Law School explains: “The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution.”

Some constitutional scholars and experts have described the Tenth Amendment as the Bill of Rights’ “catch-all” amendment, a strong reminder to federal lawmakers and officials that the federal government has strict limits, and everything outside those limits is under the control of the states.

The checks and balances of our governmental system give Congress the duty and the authority to oppose excessive behavior by the executive branch. The federal budget is an excellent tool for this purpose. It is shameful that these elected representatives have so often and for so long failed to protect their own Constitutional authority and, more importantly, the best interests of the people they were elected and sworn to represent.

The failure of Congress to oppose over-zealous federal agencies means the states have no other choice but to strongly oppose the unconstitutional federal intrusions, either through legal action, or by actions like that of Sheriff Rogers.

Washington warned us. We forgot his warnings, and are paying for it.

In his farewell address at the end of his second term as president on September 19, 1796, George Washington warned the nation of the problems with political parties “in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

The “spirit of party” has its roots in the “strongest passions of the human mind,” he said, and exists in all governments, to varying degrees, being stifled, controlled or repressed in most. But even in the young nation he had led, perhaps because of the high degree of freedom provided by its Constitution, “is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

Looking across the political landscape today, Washington’s words are brought to life. And he can objectively address the issue of political parties, as he is the only president to have had no party affiliation. Washington had to be persuaded to seek a second term, and refused to run for a third term, despite great popular support for him to do so.

Essentially, parties are dangerous because they are collections of persons who share passions, and inevitably passion creates ideas that do not fit within constitutional guidelines.

Perhaps there exists a circumstance that prompts the party to encourage expanding the meaning of the General Welfare Clause to deliver “welfare”; to imagine the need for a federal department to dictate the kinds of light bulbs or toilets we should buy; or to reinterpret the plain language of the Second Amendment “for the common good.” None of these actions are legitimate under the processes set forth by the Constitution. Such ideas may highjack party members, and shift their attention from strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution.

“Well,” the members may say, “the Founders could not have foreseen this development. The Constitution does not address this.” The party starts to rationalize how to achieve these things without following the methods provided to change the Constitution.

Maybe this perspective results from a sincere desire to fix a significant problem; maybe it is merely means to an end. Either way, it is a step away from the intent and the letter of the law of the land. Devising circuitous routes to somehow find a way to do what the Constitution does not say you may do is objectively wrong, yet our government has grown absurdly large and expensive and immorally oppressive as a result of precisely these types of activities, and is what Washington warned of.

 “[T]he common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it,” Washington advised. “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”

America’s elected leaders have seemed to be more concerned with the activities of political parties – the spirit of party – than with focusing on the principles of the governing document. This has made a mishmash of a once-clearly defined government structure. It is a tribute to the government structure the Founders’ created, however, that even after these attacks on its foundations, it still remains singularly better than any other nation on Earth. That may not be true for much longer, however.

Were all Americans focused laser-like on following the U.S. Constitution when addressing national issues, would political parties form? Would there be a need for a formal organization to defend the Constitution? Does not the very existence of political parties signal motives other than strict adherence to the Constitutional principles?

The idea of originalism, the dedication to the language and intent of the Constitution, will draw strong disagreement from those that maintain that a document created more than 200 years ago cannot possibly apply satisfactorily to today’s circumstances. Which proves Washington’s point rather well, as it is primarily ideologically driven political parties and their adherents that want to loosen the specific language espousing the principles of the Founders, so that it means what they want it to mean, rather than what is says.

Neither major political party any longer strongly represents and defends the founding principles. The Republican Party – which once fairly strongly defended the founding principles, and still outperforms the Democrats in that category – has let spirit of party rule its integrity.

The leadership of the Democrat Party long ago adopted liberalism/socialism in stronger and weaker forms, and many/most of its goals run headlong into Constitutional prohibitions.

So liberals in both parties have decided that rather than properly change the Constitution through amendments or a constitutional convention – either of which is a long, difficult path to follow – they will instead sneak through the back door, pretending that the Constitution is outdated and must therefore be reinterpreted, all the while aided in their subversion by like-minded liberal judges.

It is unlikely we can do away with political parties, but given what they have done to the country, “wouldn’t it be loverly?”

Washington State and Seattle set the nation’s highest minimum wage

Since 1998, Washington State has led the nation in both local and statewide minimum wage levels, which attracted the attention of Labor Secretary Tom Perez who praised the state for having “the highest minimum wage in the country for the last 15 years.” But the full picture is much less rosy than Secretary Perez would have us believe.

In an article on Forbes.com the Freedom Foundation’s Maxfeld Nelson put things in perspective. “Although the state’s overall job growth has remained strong since adoption of the high minimum wage, growth in industries with a prevalence of low-wage workers has slowed,” he reports. Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data he writes that while Washington State’s share of the nation’s population increased by 5.7 percent from 1998 to 2014, and its share of total U.S. jobs increased by 6.3 percent, the state’s share of U.S. hotel and restaurant jobs, which could have been expected to rise commensurately, fell by 5.7 percent. Those industries are where thousands of people the higher minimum wage was supposed to help were once employed.

In fact, while Washington’s teen unemployment rate had roughly paralleled national trends prior to the 1998 minimum wage hike, every year since then it has been substantially higher, and at one point reached 34 percent above the national rate.

Not content with the state’s $9.47 minimum wage, SeaTac, a small city that depends heavily on businesses benefitting from its airport, decided to raise its minimum to $15 an hour in a close vote in a 2013 election. “Although the narrow drafting of the ordinance and ongoing litigation have limited the law’s scope to a mere handful of businesses and employees,” Mr. Nelson writes, “it is still having consequences. A parking company has added a ‘living-wage surcharge’ to its rates. One hotel closed its restaurant and laid off 17 employees. Employees at another hotel reported losing an array of benefits, with one stating that the $15 minimum wage ‘sounds good, but it’s not good.’”

And now Seattle has hopped on board that bandwagon with a phased-in minimum wage, raising the minimum to $11 an hour April 1, and the rate hike will be fully implemented by 2025. Some businesses, however, are on a sped-up schedule, like Ritu Shah Burnham’s Z Pizza restaurant.

Even though she has only 12 employees, her business is classified as part of a “large business franchise,” putting her on the fast track to raising the minimum. “I’ve let one person go since April 1, I’ve cut hours since April 1. I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she told a local TV station. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit; there’s no other way to do it.”

One of her employees was initially excited at the advertised benefits of getting a raise and having a better life. “If that’s the truth,” he told the TV outlet, “I don’t think that’s very apparent. People like me are finding themselves in a tougher situation than ever.” He will only get to enjoy the higher pay until August, when Ms. Burnham has determined she must close her business. “I have no idea where they’re going to find jobs, because if I’m cutting hours, I imagine everyone is across the board,” she said.

Jake Spear, the director of 15 Now Seattle, a wage hike advocate group, was unmoved at the plight of these 12 employees. It’s just one restaurant, after all. “Restaurants open and close all the time, for various reasons,” he said.

Back during the flower child era of the 1960s and 70s, the operative slogan was, “If it feels good, do it!” That slogan has more recently been co-opted by pandering politicians, labor union leaders, and others more interested in the immediate rewards of increased numbers of fawning, adoring voters and thankful union members than with the reality of lost jobs, higher consumer prices, and struggling businesses. They have another favorite slogan, as well: “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

The fallacy in the minimum wage debate is that so many people – liberal feel-gooders, people new to the workforce, people in the most basic jobs and/or with the lowest skill levels, along with pandering politicians and union bosses – don’t understand the significance of varying wage levels. It eludes them that wages must be earned, not merely given like a gift, and that higher wages require more training, knowledge, skill and experience from workers than lower wages do. There is more involved in earning a high wage than just getting hired and showing up for work. You have to contribute something positive to the business you are fortunate enough to work for, and the greater your contribution, the more you are able to earn.

A mandated high minimum wage contributes to the entitlement mentality, where people expect to exist without having to contribute very much to their own well-being. This is not a positive development for a society that was built by generations of Americans who were hard working and self-reliant.

Detroit and Baltimore are graphic examples of the failure of liberal policies, and now we see Washington State and Seattle heading down that same path.