To enslave a free people, or at least to control much of their lives, a large and powerful administrative state is essential. In a nation the size of the US, it will not do just to pass oppressive laws. The mechanism must be in place to make them a real force in the people’s lives. And it must see to the enforcement of oppressive legislation. Hence, what has been called the “administrative state” had to be created, and its size had to be increased.
The administrative state consists of people who were not elected, and who are not directly accountable to the public they are alleged to be serving. In fact, it can be argued that it is not even indirectlyaccountable to American citizens. It is a blunt tool used to accomplish a blunt purpose – moving the country to the left by running roughshod over people’s lives and freedoms.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is an opponent of this oppressive administrative state. As a constitutional “originalist,” he correctly recognizes the danger it poses. He also recognizes the lack of constitutional support for such a monstrosity. At a recent meeting of the Federalist Society, he expressed his opposition to the administrative state and his commitment to shutting it down. This, to be accomplished as appropriate cases are decided by the high court. In doing so he has enraged the left. Good for him.
“The newest Supreme Court justice took square aim at one of this year’s Federalist Society Convention’s main themes: the ‘administrative state,’ the unelected mass of executive agency staff that actually creates most of the rules and regulations by which Americans live.
Resistance of the administrative state’s growth and overreach is a driving force in the emergence of populist-nationalism and the Trump movement. Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon has repeatedly called the ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’ one of the three pillars of populist-nationalism.”
This thinking is integral to the Trump presidency. Hence, it is one more reason why liberals hate President Trump. They correctly view him as not only an opponent of the administrative state, but as one who will empower others to take it down.
“Gorsuch has been under fire from the left and the mainstream legal establishment for his willingness to reexamine the once-controversial twentieth century Supreme Court decisions that made the modern, massive administrative state possible.
He mocked a recent article in the Harvard Law Review claiming the administrative state is ‘under siege’ and calling him an ‘anti-administrativist.’ ‘Anti-adminstrativism was conclusively rejected in the 1930s,’ Gorsuch quoted the article as saying.
“‘That’s kinda funny,’ Gorsuch joked, ‘I thought the powers of our government were conclusively allocated in the 1780s.’”
What the Harvard Law Review is defending by this argument is the massive increase in the size of the federal government accomplished by that hero of the political left, FDR. This was accomplished by President Roosevelt in executive, legislative, and judicial initiatives. We’ve yet to recover.
Justice Gorsuch is a champion of individual rights. He has rightly identified the administrative state as a dangerous tool used to abridge those rights.
Liberals desire the usurpation of our freedoms by a powerful administrative state they have been building for decades. To paraphrase a famous president who confronted an analogous threat to individual liberties, “Tear this administrative state down.”