The recent SCOTUS decisions on vaccine mandates, gun regulation, abortion, and the EPA are flawed from a strict constructionist perspective. Rather than striking down 20th century theories underpinning decisions which unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the executive branch and the federal government in general, respectively, the Court instead tried to set limits to the ways in which those doctrines could be applied.
Still, insofar as these decisions represent a change in direction, rather than the last word on these issues, they may provide a roadmap out of the political acrimony that is tearing American society apart.
The legislative power
In ruling against President Biden’s vaccine mandates and the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” the Court makes reference to a long-ignored principle called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which posits that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to delegate its legislative power to the executive.
In other words, when the Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” it means no legislative powers are vested in the executive.
Strictly applied, this principle would mean striking down the New Deal, root and branch. Although there were examples of limited rulemaking by executive branch regulatory agencies prior to the 1930s, it was FDR’s coup that created and empowered to legislate the myriad “alphabet soup agencies” within the federal government.
Rather than such a radical change, the Court merely set limits to how far beyond legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president regulatory agencies can go in making legally enforceable rules themselves.
The “glass half empty” way to look at this is that the Court has further established that the executive branch can legislate – just “not too much.” The opposite view, as expressed by constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman, is that these precedents represent the first indications of the Court turning away from 84 years of bad precedent and back towards a constitutionally limited government.
(For my discussions on this subject with Gutzman, see Episodes 1, 28, and 94 of Tom Mullen Talks Freedom).
The significance of this question cannot be understated. Garet Garret called the New Deal a “revolution” for good reason – it effectively transformed the U.S. government from its previous republican form to a new, soft form of fascism, with an executive branch issuing fiat commands instead of a legislature representing a diverse constituency writing laws.
Roe vs. Wade came as a shock, even to people who believe the power to regulate abortion is reserved to the states. Lost in the triumphant celebrations of the decision on one side and the abject horror and hysteria on the other is the fact states like my own (New York) are now less restricted in liberalization of their abortion laws.
The 1973 decision didn’t just strike down state laws prohibiting abortion. It wrote new ones, something no court, state or federal, has any legitimate power to do. This is the other edge of the sword in allowing federal judges to override state law. They have taken the power away from the states forever.
The Court did two things in its Roe decision. First, it implicitly affirmed the Incorporation Doctrine, the legal theory that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” most of the first ten amendments to the Constitution to apply against the states. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this with constitutional scholar and historian Kevin Gutzman on an episode of my podcast (neither of us believe the doctrine is valid).
The Incorporation Doctrine was necessary to arrive at the original Roe decision. It provides the basis for a federal court to strike down state laws. Without this doctrine, the Bill of Rights is only applicable to the federal government, leaving protection of individual rights to the bills of rights in the state constitutions.
Second, the Court narrowed interpretation of the Incorporation Doctrine to those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution or “rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” The Court did not find any evidence of an American tradition of a right to abortion, but rather a tradition of precisely the opposite: the longstanding tradition of states prohibiting abortion before Roe.
Note that this is not a finding that no right to abortion should exist. It is merely a finding that protecting this right, if it does exist, is not a power delegated to the federal government.
Neither is regulating immigration, according to James Madison, the man who wrote the words of the Constitution. In his Virginia Resolution of 1798, in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, he wrote,
That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution, in the two late cases of the “alien and sedition acts,” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government;
Like Roe vs. Wade, the federal government’s power to regulate immigration was simply “discovered” by the Supreme Court in a decision at least as spurious as Roe. There are no words in the Constitution indicating this power is delegated to the federal government.
Proponents sometimes point to the naturalization power as somehow implying a power to regulate immigration. But this is ridiculous. Naturalization concerns only the power to determine who becomes a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with regulating who can or cannot cross the borders of any of the states.
Others point to the 1808 clause as meaning the federal government was delegated the power after 1808. While this argument is slightly more plausible, both it and the naturalization clause were written by Madison himself, who nevertheless stated regulating immigration was a power “no where delegated.”
Jefferson added in his own Kentucky Resolution of the same year that the 1808 clause was added merely out of “abundant caution,” not a grant of this new power after 1808.
As there has been no subsequent amendment to the Constitution delegating this power to the federal government, it must remain with the states.
While the Incorporation Doctrine would not apply as this is not a dispute regarding the federal Bill of Rights, it is noteworthy that at the time of the decision, there was no tradition or history of the federal government regulating immigration. On the contrary, the case in which the Court concluded this was a federal power concerned a dispute over the way the California State immigration officers were regulating immigration.
If there has been a federal power as contentious as regulating abortion, it has been regulation of immigration. Cities run by liberal politicians have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” in defiance of federal immigration laws. States like Florida and Texas, run by conservative politicians, have taken to shipping “undocumented immigrants” sent to their states either back to their point of entry or to Washington, D.C. in protest.
This is no way to conduct civil society.
The rancor over immigration is the predictable result of the federal government exercising authority never delegated to it by the states. The Post Office may be abysmal, but it doesn’t inspire the hatred federal immigration enforcement does because it is recognized as a power the states agreed to delegate to the federal government.
If either Democrats or Republicans brought a case on immigration, it would test the Court’s conviction to its constitutional principles. Immigration checks all the boxes of the Court’s own reasoning for a power improperly usurped by the federal government through a previous SCOTUS decision. In Dobbs, the Court wrote, “This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.”
In the cases of both abortion and immigration, that is precisely what the Court did. Overturning Chy Lung vs. Freeman would right precisely the same wrong.
It is not as if federal regulation of immigration is working now. Under both liberal and conservative presidents, the process to immigrate legally has been woefully deficient, resulting in millions of immigrants entering the country illegally or (more often) staying long past their visas expire. There is every reason to believe the states would do a better job at this and could also tailor their immigration laws to be as strict or lenient as they wish.
To those who find the consequentialist arguments of Chy Lung vs. Freeman compelling, there is an opportunity to offer an amendment to the Constitution to properly delegate this power to the federal government. This would not simply be a dead-on-arrival letter. It would give Americans across the political spectrum a chance for input on the language of such an amendment and the limits, or lack thereof, on the power.
If no amendment agreeable to the requisite number of states can be written, then the process of trying will have proven this is a power which must be reserved to the states. If an amendment can be ratified, then the federal government can go on sucking at regulating immigration, just as it does at delivering the mail, without risking a civil war.
A leaked draft of an opinion written by Justice Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the Court is prepared to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that found unconstitutional state laws prohibiting abortion. The ruling would also strike down modifications made in the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. vs. Casey decision of 1992.
If the final decision is substantively the same as the draft, it will continue a process of “re-federalization” that has been gaining momentum since the 2016 election cycle. Many viewed the Donald Trump presidency as divisive, but Trump’s election was more revelatory of existing divisions than divisive itself.
Long before Trump declared his candidacy, many states had already effectively nullified federal marijuana regulations and immigration laws. Talk of Texas seceding from the union had resumed during the Obama administration; similar rumblings in California began soon after Trump was inaugurated.
What has inspired the most rancor on both sides are cultural issues: abortion, what is taught in schools, who is allowed to get married, who is and is not required to bake the wedding cake, and who is and is not allowed to cross the borders, immigration being both a cultural issue and an economic one.
There is also an underlying dissatisfaction with economic outcomes, which are most affected by the monetary system and the New Deal regulatory structure, although neither conservatives nor liberals seem anxious to address either.
None of the federal powers above, including regulating immigration, are expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. They were all “discovered” by the Supreme Court using reasoning arguably as dubious as that employed in Roe v. Wade.
The whole idea of judicial review for constitutionality is a suspect one. The reason for having a written Constitution in the first place is to ensure there is no confusion about what powers the federal government has been delegated and not delegated. It should not be necessary to hold a legal proceeding, followed by a lengthy written decision by the “finest legal minds in the land” to determine whether or not a given power is delegated to the federal government in a five-page document.
If there is any doubt at all, an amendment should be offered. That is the only honest way to obtain consent of the governed for a new power. Acquiring power through the court system is a transparent attempt to do so without the consent of the governed, with knowledge aforethought that you are imposing authority that would not be granted voluntarily.
Article V of the Constitution provides the means by which consent of the governed is obtained by the federal government. It is not obtained through federal elections. They merely determine who exercises power, not what power is exercised.
Neither are amendments ratified by a simple majority of United States citizens. They are ratified by a supermajority of the states, who are the parties to the Constitution. They formed a federal government, not a national one, for the express and stated purpose of preventing a simple majority of all U.S. citizens from ruling over a unitary nation.
This is clear from notes on the constitutional convention taken by James Madison and Robert Yates. Forming a national government with the states as mere subdivisions was thoroughly discussed and rejected. The union would be a federation of states with limited powers delegated to the federal government and all others retained by the states or the people.
This is more than just academic pedantry. The United States is a boiling cauldron of political hatred about to boil over. Once the abortion decision is official, we can expect a repeat of the rioting we saw in 2020 over George Floyd. We saw even the typically orderly right give into similar behavior last January. There is no reason to believe things will simmer down anytime soon.
Article V provides a way out of this. Offering amendments to grant the federal government those powers it has illegitimately acquired in the past through the courts will result in one of three outcomes for each disputed issue: 1) the amendment will be ratified as offered, 2) the amendment will be revised through negotiation into something a supermajority of states accept and then ratified, or 3) the amendment will fail completely, making clear to all this is a power that must be reserved to the states.
Perfection is unattainable in any political process. But any of the three outcomes above would provide a pressure valve on the issue in question. Amendments should be offered for all powers obtained by the federal government through the courts in the past, no matter how long ago the acquisition occurred: regulation of abortion, immigration, healthcare, education, and marriage included.
While we’re at it, why not settle the very first constitutional crisis the way it should have been settled: an amendment granting the government the power to incorporate a bank.
Given the exponential growth of the federal government over the past one hundred years, dozens of amendments should have been offered during that period. Yet, since 1933 only six have been ratified, one of those being what would have been the Second Amendment if ratified when originally proposed in 1789.
Both conservatives and liberals are reluctant to pursue the constitutional amendment process because it is difficult by design. But there are only two ways to exercise power: with the consent of the governed and without it. Americans have chosen the latter over the past century, taking the relatively easy, dishonest route to power through the court system. That has led us to where we are now: at each other’s throats.
We would be wise to retrace our steps and determine the federal government’s powers legitimately before we have a real insurrection on our hands.
TAMPA, May 20, 2012 – Thanks to Ron Paul’s extraordinary presidential campaign, libertarianism is arguably getting its best hearing in decades. It’s catching on, especially with young people. While baby boomers prepare to retire and devour Social Security and Medicare to the bone, the generations succeeding them realize that they will be stuck with the bill for these financially insolvent social programs, along with an unsustainable foreign policy.
Proceeding from its central tenet of non-aggression, libertarianism sees government the way Thomas Paine did. “Even in its best state, [it] is but a necessary evil.” Some libertarians think Paine was only half right. Either way, a libertarian government would do far less and cost far less than the one we have now.
Ron Paul has presented one of the purest libertarian platforms of any presidential candidate in U.S. history. Paul absolutely refuses to consider preemptive war and wants to “march right out” of the Middle East, Germany, Japan and Korea. He doesn’t just want to reform Social Security and Medicare; he wants to let younger workers opt completely out.
He wants to end the drug war and pardon all non-violent drug offenders. He wants to repeal the Patriot Act and subsequent “war on terror” legislation.
Paul doesn’t pitch a watered down version of libertarianism to avoid ruffling feathers within his party. When asked about a federal prohibition on gay marriage, Paul responds that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, even at the state level, except for enforcing marriage agreements like any other contract.
However, there are a few issues where Paul’s libertarianism has been questioned. The most consequential in terms of political impact is his stance on abortion. Paul is staunchly pro-life.
Some have said this violates the basic tenets of libertarianism. The government cannot be allowed to dictate what an individual does regarding her own body. All libertarian theory is rooted in property rights and the most basic, fundamental property right is self-ownership. This precedes modern libertarianism. John Locke, the philosopher that inspired Thomas Jefferson, established this principle before the right to any other kind of property.
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”
The progressive pro-choice argument rests firmly upon this foundation. A woman owns her body and has sole dominion over what occurs within it. While progressives generally go on to violate this principle with their support for government regulation of virtually every other decision one makes with one’s body, they are very libertarian on this issue.
Or are they?
While libertarian theory is built upon property rights, it also recognizes a natural limit to the exercise thereof. That limit is what Locke called, “the law of nature,” which is that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Based upon this limit, the woman’s rights would seem to end before she can bring harm to the fetus. Yet, libertarians recognize that everyone has a right to forcibly remove an unwanted person from his or her property. What is the libertarian answer?
TAMPA, May 20, 2012 – Thanks to Ron Paul’s extraordinary presidential campaign, libertarianism is arguably getting its best hearing in decades. It’s catching on, especially with young people. While baby boomers prepare to retire and devour Social Security and Medicare to the bone, the generations succeeding them realize that they will be stuck with the bill for these financially insolvent social programs, along with an unsustainable foreign policy.