Scott Kamps
* 2nd of a 2-part column
If tyranny is – as the Founders postulated – the concentrating of powers (legislative, executive and/or judiciary) into the same hands, then the greatest threat of tyranny for Americans today is the administrative state: even greater than the weaponization of the justice system.
The administrative state – unmentioned in the Constitution, now undermining all three legitimate branches – is disdainfully referred to as the fourth branch of government. It began in Germany in the 1800s and its ideas (imported to America in the early 1900s) have spread like wildfire in the last 60 years.
One main idea of Progressivism is human nature has improved and we no longer need checks/balances to limit the power of government. So, to enable the State to address modern problems/circumstances, government needs to be enlarged. Because the Constitution was designed specifically to limit governmental power, Progressives use the administrative state to accomplish what they can’t through legislation. Understanding this contrast shines light on the reality that the administrative state is the enemy of constitutional order.
Consider two recent examples of administrative state overreach:
* The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently banned noncompete agreements (Wall Street Journal, April 23, “FTC Bans Noncompete Agreements That Restrict Job Switching”). My point is not about whether noncompete agreements are good or bad – the issue is: Congress is the only one with authority to ban them – not unelected bureaucrats. One FTC member wrote in his dissention: “Our Constitution assigns Congress the legislative power because Congress answers to the people for its choices. We are not a legislature; we are an administrative agency wielding only the power lawfully conferred on us by Congress. Americans cannot vote us out when we get it wrong.”
Over 30 million agreements were declared null and void after this one-size-fits-all overreach by unaccountable “experts.”
* The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Garland v. Cargill regarding whether bump stocks make a gun a machine gun, and hence illegal. Again, my point is not about bump stocks themselves, but who gets to decide on their legality – Congress or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Congress passed the 1934 National Firearms Act making machine guns illegal and Congress expanded the Act in 1968 to include “destructive devices.” But the ATF acknowledged multiple times before 2018: bump stocks don’t transform guns into machine guns as defined by federal law.
After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting using a bump stock, ATF issued a regulation in 2018 to count bump stocks as “machines guns,” forcing owners of them to destroy or surrender them.
Even Senator Feinstein said in 2017, “The ATF lacks authority … to ban bump-fire stocks. Period,” adding, “Legislation is the only answer … Congress should not attempt to pass the buck.” While her bill – an overreach itself – didn’t pass, she was right that ATF actions involved an unconstitutional power grab.
We, citizens of America, need to decide if we want the constitutional order our Founders designed or government of unlimited power that Progressives think best.
Put succinctly: do we want freedom or tyranny?
Scott Kamps writes a bi-weekly column for The Graham Star. He can be reached via email, thestableguy@frontier.com.