Colorado’s bogus legal theory failed, so New York invents a new crime.

Initially, Colorado and Maine attempted to deny Trump ballot access by asserting that he was an ineligible presidential candidate since he had violated the insurrectionist clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down their claims, empathically holding state power does not extend to federal officials and candidates “Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not a portion, of the people.’”

Subsequently, New York tried a different approach: indictment. It twisted its legal system to give voters nationwide the appearance of providing a fair trial while it schemed to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights. New York’s goal was to tarnish Trump’s reputation, to tilt the election to the blue-state candidate.

It has been less than four months since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Colorado’s attempt to remove President Trump from the ballot. During that time, New York invented a new crime to bring against Trump. It was a combination of a misdemeanor business records violation for which the statute of limitation had run and an alleged crime of miscategorizing an expense for a non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. This unprecedented move was clearly aimed at undermining his candidacy and influencing the election outcome.

New York then staged a trial that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony and convicted Trump of the invented crime. The New York trial court record is replete with examples of how the state, acting through a biased and conflict-ridden judge and a prosecutor campaigning to “Get Trump,” flagrantly violated the former President’s constitutional right to due process to keep him from campaigning in the federal election for President of the U.S.

At trial, New York failed to inform Trump of the alleged crime, denied him the right to put on expert witnesses on election law, and failed to require the jury to unanimously find him guilty of a specific crime as mandated by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. New York’s injustice is further compounded by the judge’s “Gag Order” that prevents the former President from freely speaking about the case during the presidential campaign. The Gag Order was continued even after the jury was dismissed, clearly an effort to restrict Trump’s campaign.

The 2024 election is on November 5^th.

With the 2024 election just around the corner, the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. New York’s threat to our federal election can only be resolved by one or more red states petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over issues involving conflicts between states. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not immediately address New York’s election interference, it could permanently disrupt a “uniquely important national interest” by allowing voters in different states to believe Trump is a criminal and should not hold office.

Since the votes cast in each state are affected by the votes cast in all states, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”

This disruption could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result, leading to a chaotic and uncertain future. As the Supreme Court noted in the Colorado case,  “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we [United States] endure such chaos.” The potential consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

The red States have a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court to block New York’s election interference.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution reserves a special place in the nation’s operation for states to protect the Republic from the unconstitutional election interference of states seeking to subvert the integrity of national elections. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, plays the essential role in upholding this principle. The relevant part of Article III, sec 2, clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This right is so significant to the functioning of the Union that Congress codified and expanded it at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1251(a) to ensure this protection is straightforward and can be immediately exercised by states.

28 U.S.C. 1251(a) reads:

• The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. [emphasis added]

Moreover, New York’s election interference violates the rights of the voters of all states to have a fair election by denying a presidential candidate the Privileges and Immunities protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the guardians of national elections, the red states have a crucial role to play. They can directly challenge the state of New York’s unconstitutional conduct in the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby upholding our Republic’s integrity and all citizens’ rights.

The Court’s process for handling cases under original review.

While section 1251(a) states that the ‘Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court views such power as discretionary. Therefore, the red states must file a ‘motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,’ a formal request for permission to present a legal case. The justices will then decide whether to accept or reject the complaint based on the merits of the case and the potential impact on the nation’s electoral process.

Historically, these state vs. state cases involved water rights, boundary disputes, and commercial fishing. The Court has rejected cases involving goods made by convicts, one state prohibiting state employee travel to another state, and inheritance taxes imposed on residents of other states. The last major state vs. state case was Florida vs. Georgia (2021): the Court rejected Florida’s claim that Georgia consumed more than its fair share of water since Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence a severe injury caused by Georgia.

Fortunately, an extensive trial court record for the red states makes the case ready for Supreme Court review.

By having original jurisdiction, many of these state vs. state cases arrive at the Supreme Court without the benefit of a lower court decision setting forth the facts and law relied upon by the parties. As a result, the Supreme Court must appoint a Special Master who gathers evidence, takes sworn testimony, and rules on the evidence. This process can take years for the Special Master to complete his report. The Special Master submits a report to the Supreme Court in a manner similar to an appellate court decision. The Court decides to accept or reject the Master’s report.

In the case of the Red States vs. New York, there is no need for a Special Master since a comprehensive trial record is available to the Court. Moreover, the questions before the Court are all matters of law, not fact, since all the facts are contained in the trial court record. From that record, the Supreme Court can determine if the state of New York unconstitutionally used its legal system in a manner that interfered with the elections in other states.

While the Supreme Court has adjudicated presidential election controversies, e.g., Bush v. Gore, it involved private parties. However, the Court has never ruled on a controversy in which a group of states alleged another state interfered with a national election. Red States vs. New York is an opportunity for the Court to set limits on election interference by states since these types of state actions are capable of repetition.

Post Script

While state vs. state election interference claims rest within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, New York and the actions of other blue states, e.g., Colorado and Maine, to keep Trump off the ballot may also violate numerous federal civil rights statutes, giving former President Trump standing to sue the individuals in those states, acting under color of law, who conspired to keep him off the ballot and/or interfere with the election. These statutes are 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights, privileges, and immunities), 42 U.S.C. 1985 (conspiracy to prevent Trump from holding office, obstructing justice, and depriving him of his privileges and immunities), and 42 U.S.C. 1986 (allows Trump to sue those who had the power to prevent violations of his civil rights but were negligent in not preventing them, i.e., the Governor of New York. The Civil Rights statutes may also apply to individuals such as the fifty-one intelligence officials who knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic but claimed it to be Russian disinformation to smear Trump and elect Biden. Also, under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the FBI agents may be sued for their negligence in failing to stop the false statements by the fifty-one intelligence officials that interfered with the 2020 election.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 Stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in SCOTUS appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

While Donald Trump was met with mixed reactions at the Libertarian National Convention, a number of Libertarians have started to give this offer another look. Following the Libertarian Party selecting Chase Oliver as their Presidential Nominee, a number of Libertarians are declining to back a candidate who supports children using puberty blockers and hormones. Many also believe that the 34 felony count conviction of Donald Trump was indeed politically motivated to specifically railroad the leading candidate in the race.

Some Libertarians however are still skeptical of Donald Trump’s olive branch to the Libertarian Party members. I have seen this question posed many times:

“If Donald Trump said he would drain the swamp but didn’t do it in his first term, why should I believe he would do it in his second term?”

This is absolutely a fair question, and it is based on a correct premise. Donald Trump clearly did not drain the swamp in his first term, and quite the opposite included swamp creatures like Michael Bolton in his administration. History can certainly be a predictor of future behavior, but one can also learn from their mistakes. History is also not the only predictor of behavior. Libertarians also understand that incentives guide behavior, and the incentives are much different this time. There is one consistent factor that was a liability to Trump in his first term, but will be an asset to him in a second term. That factor being, Donald Trump loves Donald Trump.

He really loves Donald Trump.

This was clearly a liability in Trump’s first term, as he was susceptible to flattery. He let the wrong people around him and gave them access to levers of power. The deep state was amongst his cabinet, undermining him at every turn while keeping him in the dark the best they could. They gained this access simply by buttering Trump up and flattering him.

Donald Trump’s love of Donald Trump will be an asset in a second term because self preservation is on the line. Donald Trump wants to save Donald Trump. This will absolutely require drastic actions that Libertarians would call a good time. 

Trump has already surrounded himself with better people who are committed to draining the swamp. Close by his side is Vivek Ramaswamy who has written plans for mass layoffs in Federal alphabet agencies, stating we need to do to the Federal Government what Elon Musk did to Twitter. Ramaswamy has proposed staffing cuts initially as high as 75% to get the party started.

Almost every action imaginable that Trump would need to take to save his own ass aligns with Libertarian goals and large reductions in government.

And Trump really wants to save his own ass, because Donald Trump really loves Donald Trump.

The post Why Trump Will Drain The Swamp In His 2nd Term appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I could tell stories for days of my parents’ selfless generosity. My upbringing was unconventional. Many people who needed a place to live came and went on the 80 acres I grew up on in Southwest Missouri. Some lived in a tiny cottage that came with the property, some lived in mobile homes, and some even created a home in the old hog barn. There was no judgment – if it was within our ability to help neighbor or stranger, we did. 

Although we did not celebrate some of the traditional holidays, we did celebrate Mother’s and Father’s Day. But there was always a hint of rebellion at the idea of honoring parents just because the government said we should. (Those of you who know me will begin to see where I get my libertarian bent.)  As I grew older, I decided to honor my father and mother on the day they became my parents – my birth date. It made more sense to give back to them on the day they gave life to me. For a long time, I tended to resist some of the holidays because they have become so commercialized, laden with material expectation, obligation, and guilt.

I was wrong.

As a country, we are bonded with our fellow citizens by shared national ideals and values. Holidays of remembrance, honor and celebration are vital to our unity – especially given our uniquely American foundation of fierce individual rights and liberty. In today’s culture where there are those determined to usurp and devalue the role of women as mothers, honoring motherhood and elevating the traits a mother should possess while celebrating their differences is more important than ever.

 A couple of weeks ago, I texted my daughters to remind them that I did not expect and did not need anything for Mother’s Day. They show their love for me in a thousand ways any given day of the year. They lol’d and said okay. No expectations. No obligation. No guilt. 

When I woke up on this second Sunday in May, my older daughter was already gone to work and I walked into the kitchen to find flowers, homemade cookies, and gift bags for both me and my mother. I was not surprised. This is how she expresses her love. When the younger returned home that afternoon from a weekend with her dad, she helped me prep Mother’s Day dinner for my parents with some of my mother’s favorite dishes. And then she went the extra mile and did additional tasks without being asked. This was her gift, just as meaningful as flowers and sweets.

A friend texted that morning, wishing me a Happy Mother’s Day, and I asked, “What was your favorite thing about your mother?” He immediately replied, “Her patience, her ability to take a joke when we all made fun of her, the sense of overwhelming unconditional love.”

Something about that seemingly simple, yet profound description struck a deep emotional chord. Isn’t that what all mothers should strive for? Aren’t those among the qualities we all need from our mothers? If my daughters can say only that about me, I could ask for nothing more.

Throughout the day on social media, I read story after story of how mothers shape the lives of their children, and messages from moms encouraging other moms. In the minutiae of the day-to-day, we often don’t consider the long term impact of what we do for our children. We just do what needs to be done in that moment. 

But there are moments in history when mothers doing what needs to be done changes the course of a nation.

There is no greater recent example of this than the movement we saw come out of the covid lockdown of schools. There was an awakening across the country as parents’ eyes were opened to what was happening in their schools and what their children were being taught – and not taught. For many, their trust in the public education system was destroyed. 

In Florida, Moms for Liberty formed in 2021 to push back against covid mandates in schools. They grew to hundreds of groups in 45 states by 2023. In Missouri, there were mothers (and fathers) who suddenly became involved in politics out of the necessity of doing what needed to be done for their children in that moment. They showed up at school board meetings, they ran for those school boards, they formed coalitions in their communities, went to the Capitol, got involved in political campaigns, and filed lawsuits against the education bureaucracy that was actively doing harm to their kids.

Shannon, one of those Missouri moms who stepped up to lead, shared this in a Facebook group:

“…Those years taught me how to stand up for my children and my liberties. I fought for all my children but none more than Max. He was a Freshman in high school at the time. It was him who came to me and begged me to help get school in person. He was struggling emotionally and mentally aside from starting to fail academically.  He was the reason I even got involved at all. I didn’t know how to get the school’s attention, what avenues I needed to take. I just knew my child was pleading to me with tears in his eyes to help. You know that feeling. You remember that feeling with your own children.

Last year, in Max’s machine tooling class, they made metal hearts with “Happy Mothers Day” on them. He told me he wanted to say something different, more meaningful so he inscribed “thanks for saving the world”.  This is probably the most treasured Mother’s Day gift any of my kids have ever gotten me.

No one person can save the world. That’s not what he meant, but I do believe I helped save his little world. Through this group, through our advocacy and our determination and my family’s decision to move, I in some small way helped save his world. I am sure I could say the same thing about you and your children would agree. You helped save their world.”

Early attempts to establish holidays for mothers included a committee to establish a “Mother’s Friendship Day,” organized by Ann Jarvis in 1868. The purpose of Ann’s holiday was “to reunite families that had been divided during the Civil War.” Many women’s peace groups had organized similarly in the 19th century with the common theme of mothers coming together whose sons had fought or died on opposite sides of the war. 

Mother’s Day is rooted in peace, forgiveness, unity, and finding common ground.

Of course, there are bad mothers. There are mediocre mothers. There are mothers lauded as the epitome of maternal virtue. None of us are perfect mothers. Our shortcomings are ingrained into our children along with our strengths. When a child is rude or misbehaves, how many times have you heard, “Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?” (Or does anyone still actually say that???)

In our highly polarized and tribalistic political culture, I often wonder where we went wrong. I think of all the old sayings our mothers and grandmothers used to repeat: “You catch more flies with honey.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Life’s not fair.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And so many more, including one that was a constant in my childhood, “What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.”

If you’ve paid much attention to politics in Missouri (or wherever you are, no doubt) at all lately, you’d think a whole lot of adults either missed out on some of these lessons or have forgotten them entirely. And if you’re paying attention, you will also notice that conservatives and libertarians are losing the war for the principles and values that have made these United States of America a “shining city on a hill.” We have a “supermajority” of Republicans in our state, yet we are increasingly divided as purism breeds contempt and disharmony.

We lack legacy thinking. The gains for liberty we saw in the unified grassroots pushback against covid tyranny have already begun to wane as we are consumed by infighting. We have short memories, forgetting so quickly the lessons we learned. Our “solutions” tend to be stopgap measures that get social media clicks, but sweep the problems under the rug of the next generation. Our mothers should be disappointed in us. I can almost hear them saying, “Just wait ‘til your Founding Fathers get home!”

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

 If we’re not persuading, we’re losing. Our words matter. Our rhetoric matters. Even when we fall short of them – especially when we fall short of them. You might have heard the admonition to “let your speech always be with grace…” Perhaps we should spend more time listening to understand so that our words will likewise be heard and considered. After all, “God gave you two ears and one mouth so you can listen more than you speak.” 

When I think of my mother, I think of how she is always singing or humming, her penchant for practical jokes, her unerring belief that I can do anything I put my mind to, her unending generosity, and her unconditional love even when I am sure I have disappointed her. To this day, I want her to be proud of me. And I want to take the lessons that I learned late and teach them to my children early. I want to leave a legacy they can build on. I want to save their world.

Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Looking ahead to the second Sunday of 2025, I believe the best way we can collectively honor our mothers is to honor the Mother’s Day holiday legacy of peace and reconciliation. Working together, finding common ground, being patient with each other, and treating each other well even when we disagree. And above all, keeping a sense of humor. Are there gifts greater than these?

The post The Hand That Rocks the Cradle: A Mother’s Day Retrospective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Men would fire back that not all men were dangerous to women, and any bear you run into in the woods is dangerous. All things ‘No Shit.’

To be fair, not all men and women were at odds, rather it was a vocal minority on each side. Plenty of others simply laughed at the memes that came out of the controversy. You can always rely on memes. But for that vocal crowd this became a polarizing all or nothing debate, where in reality this is another example that two things can be true. 

Where did things go wrong? The concern that women have is obviously valid and true. However the framing of this concern was done exceptionally poorly, which gave birth to natural exceptions coming from men. Women were receiving “not all men” as a response because the thought experiment included all men. Women certainly were not saying that all men are this way, but it did construct yet another caricature about men that was unflattering, essentially stating that they are to be viewed as animals or sexual predators regardless of whether or not they are. While illustrating points can be beneficial for making a point, venturing into hyperbole about people is not a good way to convince them to listen to you. 

The thought experiment became less and less honest as the women making this comparison demanded control of all nuance. No nuance allowed from men, nor even from women who made counter points.

Below is a post from a woman extending the logic from the forest to women’s spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 

She is told that this is irrelevant despite it being a natural and logical extension of the thought experiment. It is clearly an applicable element of this debate, so why is it irrelevant? Because you don’t control the nuance, that’s why. You don’t get to suggest this. That’s not where we intended for this conversation to go. 

Here seems like a good place to casually mention that just about every day a female adult sexually assaults a gradeschool boy.

The data is clear. Obviously way more women are harmed or killed by men than by bears every year. So why wouldn’t this comparison make the grandest of sense to everyone? Why wouldn’t men just understand that they should be perceived as threatening everywhere they go?

Let’s talk about how men understand this.

The thought experiment is centered around chance encounters with strangers. Men actually understand chance encounter violence very well, because more men are killed by strangers than women (and yes, we recognize that it is mostly men doing the killing).

While chance encounter violence does occur with women, the overwhelming majority of danger to women comes from intimate partners. When you see women justifying the Man VS Bear thought experiment due to 1 in 4 women experiencing sexual violence, what they are citing is an intimate partner and not a chance encounter with a stranger (which voids the premise behind the thought experiment).

Men understand bad men being intimate partners pretty well too. If you’re a man reading this, then much like myself you’ve probably warned a woman friend about an intimate partner they’ve started seeing, and she didn’t listen to you. You’re nodding yes, I can see you. You knew it was going to end badly and It did. The things you either knew about this guy, or were able to sense by his mannerisms and communications, were actually selling points to her. 

There’s a reason the vocal minority of women who are incredibly invested in this latest controversy also are conflating intimate partner violence with random chance to spread suspicion amongst all men. They’re attracted to red flags and are trying to absolve themselves of poor decision making.

Listen to the below audio clip obtained by Journalist Jonathan Choe. In this three minute voice clip sent to a friend by Liliya Guyvoronsky, she details why she has not left a toxic relationship. She gives plenty of good reasons for why she wants to leave that relationship, but listen to the reason why she hasn’t left. Now please understand that she is dead.

Liliya details many red flags about this person as reasons why she wants to leave, but the reason why she stayed is horrifying. She was emotionally invested in quite arguably the worst thing about this person. He would role play sex trafficking her, and she was so intrigued by the disturbing role play and she wanted to know what would happen next. Next she was murdered. 

Is it Liliya’s fault she was murdered? No. Is her murderer, James McNeal responsible for her death? Yes. Would Liliya still be alive if she were smarter? Also yes.

Do not absolve yourselves of poor decision making. Two things can be true.

The post Woman VS Bear: Two Things Can Be True appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, two events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right. However, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6^th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6^th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6^th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history.

If January 6^th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6^th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

The relevant parts of the 14^th Amendment read:

Section 3. No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

• Section 3 is not limited to the Civil War.
• It operates independently of criminal proceedings or an impeachment.
• It is self-executing by any state election official.
• It is an immediate disqualification from office.
• “…public officials don’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe their argument valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own” and any ballot within their jurisdiction.
• Finally, “[T]he election officials are legally required to do so.”

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14^th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. The two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 as it would cause legal chaos. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of The Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
4. The Syndicate, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
5. The circulation of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
6. As to the January 6^th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
7. The Monkey Trial committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
8. After President Trump left office, The Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6^th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination.
12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

Keyword: Coup d’état

Tags:

Meta description:

The post Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Unfortunately, this simple statement often achieves its goal of obstructing efforts by Congress to obtain information. While Congress may be upset with the response, many times, it is cowed into accepting presidents can protect their people from being investigated for criminal conduct. Fortunes, however, can be reversed. If Republicans win the White House with a presidential candidate who sincerely wants to uphold the rule of law, restore justice to the legal system and hold the “Deep State” accountable, that president can make it happen.

The leading Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination have promised to fire the FBI director and clean house at the Department of Justice. If a Republican wins the presidency in November 2024, FBI Director Wary and AG Garland will resign long before they can be fired. So, candidates, please, stop pandering. No one will be fired. All pablum, worthless and oversimplified promises.

Suppose a new president truly wants to clean up the deep, dark, corrupt state at the DOJ and FBI. In that case, the Republican president need only waive Executive Privilege and issue an Executive Order declassifying all investigatory materials sought by the current Republican House of Representatives. Let Congress bleed the truth out of those subverting the Constitution.

Executive compliance is simple. When Congress requests documents, the Executive should order them produced. When testimony is sought, provide it without asserting objections. Cooperate with the Republican House to find the truth.

Since the Nixon administration, presidents have asserted Executive Privileges thirty times to block congressional investigations. Presidential assertions included protecting the president’s brother (Billy Carter), girlfriends (Monica Lewinsky), mismanagement of funds (Solyndra), foreign affairs (Benghazi), gun running (fast and furious), and the Watergate tapes. Democrat and Republican administrations act as if providing Congress with requested information concerning an investigation will somehow diminish their manhood.

Finding and eliminating corruption is for the benefit of the nation. Hiding corruption does not assist the president in the faithful execution of the law. The DOJ/FBI’s long-running minuet of never sharing information with congressional committees is a mechanism of deceit, not of protecting the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, the identities of informants, avoiding pre-trial publicity, or interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Supreme Court has long recognized the “…implied power [of Congress] to investigate and to compel the production of information” from the Executive branch.

“Executive Privilege for presidential communications is limited to the quintessential power and nondelegation of Presidential power, and those are the core functions in the Constitution.” It should only be asserted to preserve those core constitutional functions. Claiming it beyond the core constitutional functions is a delaying tactic that often allows illegal conduct to continue.

As to declassifying all documents related to alleged criminal activity in the Executive branch, no president should ever be intentionally or unintentionally covering it up. The American Bar Association writes, “Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through executive orders.” While there are procedures for declassifying the materials, a president, except for certain materials such as nuclear secrets, has almost total control to declassify records by Executive Order. Presidents at all times have the power to put sunlight on government corruption. When they choose not to expose corruption, it is an intentional coverup.

Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the Executive branch has forced Congress to issue subpoenas to secure requested documents. Presidents achieve their goal of protecting corruption by requiring years of legal battles to enforce the subpoena.

Hopefully, there will be a Republican Congress, or at least a Republican House sworn in on January 3, 2025, and on January 20, 2025, a Republican president. Between January 3, 2025, and January 20, 2025, the Republican Congress can prepare the appropriate investigative letters to the incoming president requesting the information needed to root out corruption in the DOJ/FBI. On January 20, when the Republican president enters the White House, his first order of business should be to issue an Executive Order waiving Executive privilege and formally declassifying the documents relating to all congressional investigations. These waivers should encompass all alleged DOJ/FBI corruption as described in the Durham Report, Mueller and Horowitz Reports, payments received by Joe and Hunter Biden from foreign countries, all matters associated with the development of a two-tier system of justice, efforts by the federal government to force social media companies to manipulate information distributed to the public and all other matters of high-level DOJ and FBI corruption.

By taking this approach, the president will tremendously assist the congressional investigation of the DOJ/FBI misconduct without investigating the departments he leads. If Congress finds evidence of criminal activity, it will refer the evidence to new appointees at a DOJ for appropriate prosecution.

Suppose Executive branch personnel refuse to testify or take the Fifth to protect their constitutional rights. In that case, Congress can grant the Use Immunity, which compels their testimony but provides immunity to the witness for the new information provided. A witness that refuses to testify after being given Use Immunity can be cited for contempt of Congress and imprisoned.

It’s time the federal government gets serious about corruption in government. More intriguing would be if a president followed this advice. The nation might uncover who is running the Deep State.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Big Govt Lie: “I Can’t Answer, the Matter Is Under Investigation.” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Researchers refer to such collective fears as mass hysteria. They consider it a psychogenic illness, “a condition that begins in the mind rather than the body.” It exposes itself when a group of people starts feeling anxious, sick, or crazed at the same time, notwithstanding the absence of any physical reason for their condition.

A recent The Lancet study of 10,000 young people, ages 16 – 25, found that 59% were extremely worried about climate change; 84% were at least moderately worried. The respondents suffered from sadness, anxiety, and anger and felt powerless, helpless, and guilty. The authors conclude that climate anxiety is so great these young people believe humanity is doomed, all they value is being destroyed, and they are hesitant to have children. Illustrating the impact of climate hysteria is the belief by the young people that government could protect them if it would listen to their feelings, validate and respect them, and implement their views, i.e., do what they demand.

Episodes of mass hysteria have been recorded since the Middle Ages. There have been Witch trials, dancing plagues in which the participants could not stop dancing until they were so tired they died, and screaming trances. In modern political times, there was the Red Scare hysteria over the perceived threat of communism. Before the Covid pandemic, there was the Y2K hysteria over the belief that when clocks struck midnight on January 1, 2000, all computer systems would fail to recognize the year, and society would collapse due to massive electrical outages.

Influencing today’s climate collective is a federal government and media that pound into the heads of these young people that society’s use of fossil fuels causes every problem in the world. If an area of the world is too hot or cold, it’s climate change. Forest fires, storms, floods, and draughts are due to climate change. The oceans are getting warmer, species are dying, and humanity faces more health risks due to climate change. Climate change even causes poverty. The fact that the earth is much cleaner today than a century ago is irrelevant to those possessed by climate hysteria.

Pulling together these desperate report findings is a recent National Institutes of Health study on “Covid-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria. While the study focused on how the political system and social media negatively impacted the public mind during the Covid pandemic, its findings apply to situations in which large segments of a population believe, without any injury, they are continuously exposed to dangerous conditions.

The authors of the NIH study describe mass hysteria as “a large group of people get[ting] collectively very upset” by negative information. “This threat [negative information] evokes fear and spreads in society. Symptoms can also spread.” This spread of emotions and anxiety through impacted groups is called “contagion,”

Once an infected group is in a state of mass hysteria, the government can “impose measures on the rest of the population, inflicting almost unrestricted harm,” including abrogating civil liberties. The authors describe how the federal government used lockdowns and distancing to decrease psychological resistance and create greater hysteria. The government’s actions, combined with news agencies and social media, promoted massive negative news campaigns that deteriorated psychic health by intentionally scaring those in the already anxious population.

The authors conclude that the combination of a big government that eliminates information that competes with its desired narrative and the negative information spread by social media make society more prone to the development of mass hysteria.

The Biden administration uses climate change to create the anxiety that causes mass hysteria. President Biden regularly informs the public that “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity…Unchecked, it is going to actually bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It’s real.”

Biden emphasizes a “Whole-of-government-approach” to climate change is mandatory since it touches every aspect of society and all things made by society.

By implementing a whole of government approach, Biden makes climate change the top federal priority. Policy changes are made in every aspect of governing to address climate change, including new taxes, zero-emission cars, regulating hundreds of appliances, the electrical grid, power plants, mining, oil production, manufacturing generally, and international relations. Biden’s message to these young people is that climate change is so harmful every aspect of society must be regulated to save the planet. Unfortunately, the Lancet study finds the anxiety is so deep the government’s whole-of-government response is insufficient.

The media follows its climate change narrative as a means of ingratiating itself with the government. By November 2021, U.S. news coverage of climate change reached an all-time high. Key to the coverage increase was a change in describing it from global warming to “more intense words and phrases to describe the phenomenon, such as “climate catastrophe” and “climate emergency.” These new terms were then incorporated into the tacking algorithms to increase term coverage by 50%. As an expert noted, “Our [that] language helps describe the realities of our [the climate collectivists] world.”

Within two years, the Biden administration created a deep-rooted mass hysteria about climate change among young adults. The anxiety is so great there is nothing the government can do short of shutting down society to ease their pain. Biden’s quest for power and its media partners in deception has created a widespread mental health crisis within the population segment that will soon be some of the leaders in the United States. Intentionally creating hysteria in a nation is not responsible governing or reporting.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Climate Change Frenzy Is a Mass Hysteria Movement appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

If punishment is the desire, Congress, as the legislative branch, can’t impose it. If Congress exposes the corruption, DOJ will not prosecute it, as evidenced by the Horowitz and Durham reports of government corruption.

Since the DOJ and FBI are impeding the congressional investigations, the only viable option left for the Committees is to secure the testimony of all relevant witnesses by granting “use immunity” to the Biden family, Hunter’s business associates, and the past and present leadership of the DOJ and FBI. Congress has this power under 18 U.S.C. sec 2005.

Once receiving use immunity, the witnesses can testify free of prosecution for any testimony concerning their criminal activity. A refusal to answer subjects the witness to Contempt of Congress and could result in imprisonment.

Congress has the sole discretion to grant use immunity. Moreover, neither the DOJ nor the courts can interfere with the grant of it. Title 18 USC sec. 6005 authorizes either House of Congress to grant use immunity once an individual refuses to give testimony or provide other information based on his privilege against self-incrimination.

Historically, Congress is reluctant to grant use immunity since it usually results in an inability of the DOJ to prosecute criminals. DOJ describes the dilemma:

Congress may now be forced to choose between granting immunity to exercise its oversight and investigative functions and forgoing a grant of immunity to allow the prosecution of key witnesses.

In the present situation, however, Congress is not facing a dilemma since DOJ is unwilling to prosecute any of the involved parties.

In the Watergate trials, like today, the DOJ refused to cooperate with Congress. The US Senate sought to grant use immunity to witnesses. DOJ asserted it, and the court has the power to block the grant of immunity. Chief Judge Sirica upheld the Senate’s power, writing:

Immunity is the fixed price which the government must pay to obtain certain kinds of information, and only the government [Congress] can determine how much information it wants to ‘buy’ in light of the fixed price.

Obtaining an immunity order from the district court is straightforward. In this instance, a duly authorized representative of the House of Representatives or the Committee seeking the testimony shall request a court order to require a witness to give testimony. The House or the concerned Committee must give ten days’ notice of the request to the Attorney General.

The district court must grant the congressional request if it finds:

1. In the case of a proceeding before either House of Congress, the request was approved by a majority vote of the members present, or
2. In the case of a proceeding before a committee, the request for such an order was approved by two-thirds of the members of the Committee; and
3. That the Attorney General was given ten days’ notice. The Attorney General can request another twenty days to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness’s testimony.”

Once these conditions are met, the statute is mandatory. “The court shall” issue the order. Chief Judge Sirica held section 6005 casts the role of the court as ministerial, and the Attorney General is deprived of his normal discretion concerning the granting of immunity.

Judge Sirica concluded: “[There is a] power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Quoting President Wilson, he notes the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The American people are owed the truth about corruption in their government. The House of Representatives has the power to obtain the truth. What is more important to the nation, truth or the false hope of punishment?

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Congress needs to read “The Federal Spending Diet Book.”

The Federal Spending Diet Book

Reducing federal spending is about responsible governance, not Republican or Democrat power. There are relatively commonsense efforts to reduce the debt. Chapters 1 through 9 are the easy steps to reduce federal spending by a trillion dollars or more annually. Chapter 10 is for those serious dieters who want to “Make America Great Again.” It sets out a tax system that transforms a federal government from one of picking winners and losers to one that simply collects taxes to pay the necessary bills of the government.

If “[The] journey of a thousand miles begins with one step,” our federal government needs to start walking.

 Chapter 1: Do not fund laws that have not been authorized.

The easiest set of budget cuts would be to refrain from funding laws that Congress has not authorized. “In FY 2021 appropriations, the Congressional Budget Office identified 1,068 authorizations of appropriations, stemming from 274 laws, tolling $432 billion, that expired before the beginning of the fiscal year 2022.” Since House Rules prohibit such appropriations, it should be an easy savings of almost one-half trillion dollars.

Chapter 2: Review and vote on every expenditure of the Judgment Fund.

The Judgment Fund is the mother of all slush funds. It is a permanent, indefinite, and unlimited congressional appropriation continuously available to pay money judgments entered against the United States and settlements of cases in or likely to be in litigation with the United States. It is an indefinite appropriation, so secret that Congress no longer even debates what the amounts are for. The amounts are appropriated, no matter what the amount. The Department of the Treasury just pays the claims upon the receipt of the paperwork. This is the fund that President Obama used to deliver $1.7 billion in cash to Iran as a bribe to sign the Iran nuclear deal. Why should our government officials have billions in a secret fund to cover up illegal activity? Having Congress approve each judgment and settlement as it did before 1956, the U.S. could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Chapter 3:  Follow and implement GAO’s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).

Congress mandates GAO to perform a GAAP analysis of federal spending and assets and provide recommendations to ensure the financial reporting by an agency is transparent and consistent. Every member of Congress should read these reports on how our money is managed and should implement its findings.  One specific GAO recommendation is for the federal government to address the government-wide improper payments, estimated to be $175 billion.

Chapter 4: Government must operate only for a public purpose.

The issue of Congress giving away our money to private entities has been debated since the founding of the Republic. Opponents of giveaways argue taxpayer money can only be spent on matters enumerated in the Constitution. The government asserts it can spend taxpayer money on anything that promotes the general welfare. Continuing this debate is irrelevant since the courts have made it clear legislatures determine what the general welfare is. To address the excesses of gifts to private individuals, Congress should stop giving money to private parties, including tax credits for fancy automobiles, horse racing, NASCAR, and short-line railroads, and finally eliminate carried interest.

Chapter 5: Members of Congress and the President should imagine their conference tables are merely kitchen tables that invite a family discussion over finances.

The amount of information available to Congress for making smart debt reduction decisions is overwhelming. It is time Congress puts these materials to use. A simple way to approach this task would be for each congressional committee to rank each program within its jurisdiction in order of priority.  The budget and appropriation committees would work with the authorizing committees to ensure the highest-priority programs receive priority funding. The appropriation committees would work down the list until the revenue raised by taxes is expended. At that point, Congress would have to cease spending money on programs for which there is no longer any revenue, e.g., studies of shrimp on a treadmill, or admit to the taxpayers it wants to borrow money to fund programs of lesser value. This kitchen-table process of spending only up to revenues received could save hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.

Chapter 6: Re-constitute the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures, which existed from 1941 to 1974.

This committee was established after World War II to recommend ways to reduce a massive federal budget.  Its goal was to identify non-essential spending. While the committee was only a study committee, requiring its recommendations to be submitted to authorizing and appropriation committees, it had a major impact on budgeting in government. With the inability of Congress to control spending or the states to force a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution, an alternative would be to create a similar committee to make recommendations to Congress but require its recommendations be voted on by Congress. This process creates accountability.

Chapter 7: Enact a Base Realignment and Closure Commission (“BRAC”) that applies to general appropriations.

Due to political pressure to locate the military bases in numerous congressional districts, the U.S. constructed an excess of bases but could not close unneeded ones. To address the situation, Congress established BRAC, giving the Commission power to identify unnecessary bases and to send recommendations to Congress. The key to BRAC’s recommendations to Congress is that they became law unless Congress passed a Resolution of Disapproval and the President signed it. Using the BRAC structure, Congress could apply the same concept to all recommended reductions as a means of reducing political support for unneeded programs.

Chapter 8: Establish a Budget & Waste Reduction Director in every agency to identify unnecessary expenditures.

Federal agencies have recycling and permit streamlining directors to help implement certain laws. Due to massive budget deficits, there should be a similar position to identify ways an agency can eliminate unneeded programs. The person should report directly to the head of the agency. All reports must be addressed by the head of the agency, and reasons for “No Action” must be publicly justified. Each director would recommend a 10% reduction in agency expenditures. Give the director a big bonus for meeting the target.

Chapter 9. The federal government needs to seriously re-think the massive subsidies it gives to private parties to buy green products.

In the recently enacted “Inflation Reduction Act,” Congress authorized $370 billion in new tax credits for corporations and individuals if they purchase green energy products or build green energy facilities. The tax credits are to boost sales of electric vehicles, the installation of rooftop solar panels, the development of solar power systems, heat pumps, water heaters, space heating, electric stoves, circuit breaker boxes, additional home insulation, and exterior windows, to name a few private beneficiaries. This is in addition to federal regulations imposing energy efficiency requirements on at least sixty products and $577 billion in tax credits and grants for green energy projects since 2004.

The IRA was passed only a week after Congress authorized $280 billion to incentivize the semiconductor industry to build plants in the U.S. The semiconductor industry is a very profitable $573 billion industry that is expected to grow to $1.4 trillion by 2029 due to high demand for its products.

Chapter 10: Enact a fair, simple tax code that raises money to operate the government rather than legislating personal behavior.

For those in Congress and presidents serious about the future of the United States, its time for Congress to stop using the tax code to pick winners and losers and to let the market allocate the goods and services wanted by consumers.

This simple solution is to repeal the 8-million-word tax code and replace it with the 1913- four-page Form 1040. Few deductions and low rates, but requiring everyone to pay some tax, including the wealthiest. Another benefit of this simple approach is it captures a greater amount of tax owed by closing the Tax Gap.  The IRS defines the tax gap as the difference between true taxes owed for a given tax year and the amount that is paid. The gap is caused by the under-reporting of income, non-filing, and tax evasion. While the exact amount is unknown, the IRS estimates it to range from $574 to $700 billion annually. A complex tax code invites under-reporting and manipulation, whereas a simple tax code fosters greater participation and prevents large-scale manipulation encouraged by complexity.

Starting a diet requires acknowledgment of being overweight and the desire to lose weight. The same is true with overspending. It cannot continue for the health of the nation. If overspending continues, the long-term consequences will be extremely harmful to the nation, especially future generations. While not every step in the diet book needs to be followed, if, however, the federal government implements four or five of the steps, it is guaranteed to reduce spending by a trillion dollars.

The post Shrink Your Bloated Government With This One Easy Trick appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

For decades, there have been concerns about the federal government’s growing power, size, and cost. Nothing, however, has been done to address it. It just expands. Why? Is it an uncontrollable deep state, an unmanageable bureaucracy, or just too complex? While a solution is always available, the federal government benefits significantly from the Administrative State. It opposes change.

The term Administrative State describes the power of Executive branch agencies to create, adjudicate and enforce their own rules. Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 (“APA”) to exert control over the administrative State by establishing procedures for federal agencies to make and enforce regulations. Unfortunately, over time the agencies, with the help of the courts, found ways around APA restraints.

Unfortunately, Congress has been unable to substantively amend the APA in the 76 years since its enactment, notwithstanding that the federal courts have expanded agency power by granting deference to their interpretations of the law. Judicial deference is a critical component of the Executive’s regulatory power. Applying it diminishes the lawmaking power of Congress by tipping the scales in favor of Executive branch interpretations.

Today, the Administrative State is a massive collection of unelected federal officials, except the president, that has issued 212,271 rules since 1976. Its regulatory tenacles control almost every aspect of society, from the food we eat to the health information given to us. Regulatory costs are estimated at $1.9 trillion in 2021.

Can the administrative State be reformed?

The 115^th Congress made a serious attempt to reform the APA, and by implication, the administrative State, through the Regulatory Accountability Act (“RAA”). The RAA sought to reform the rulemaking process to ensure final rules were based on sound facts and law. The House passed the RAA. The Senate voted it out of committee; however, Senate leadership refused to bring it to the floor. This effort was Congress’ first and last serious attempt to reform the administrative State.

While Congress has shown little ability to control federal agencies, the courts are now recognizing that the U.S. has an out-of-control regulatory process in need of restraint.

In December 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court, in TWISM Enterprises v. Board for Registering Professional Engineers, rejected “[A]ll forms of mandatory deference.” The case involved a rule that independent contractors could not be in charge of engineering projects since they were not full-time company employees. The Ohio Engineering Board received judicial deference for its interpretation from the lower courts. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, finding there was no statutory language precluding independent contractors from serving as full-time managers of an engineering firm. It held the principle of separation of powers precludes any mandatory deference to agency regulations that interpret a statute. Under the principle of separation of powers, only courts can interpret the law, not agencies. Deference to agencies produces “systematically biased judgments” that permit the executive branch “to say what the law means,” a clear intrusion into judicial authority.

The Ohio court also noted, “Roughly half the states in the Union review agency interpretations de novo.” The Ohio court’s decision provides the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court needs to restore the principle of separation of powers at the federal level, a principle it abandoned in Chevron when it granted agencies almost unfettered discretion to create law.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court is also moving to restrict agency lawmaking. In WVA v. EPA, the court reviewed an EPA rule that relied upon section 111 of the Clean Air Act to regulate the types and amounts of energy that could be carried on the electricity grid. Before EPA’s “new found authority,” it applied section 111 only to specific energy sources at specific locations.

Like the Ohio court, the Supreme Court examined the power Congress granted the agency. It described EPA’s attempt to assume “unheralded” regulatory power as a “transformative expansion in [its]regulatory authority” over the American economy. It concluded Congress did not grant the agency the authority to set emission caps based on shifting the percentage generation of fuels that could be carried on the grid.

Recognizing that agencies use “vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used statute[s]” to create new law,” it announced the “Major Questions Doctrine, requiring agencies to point to “clear congressional authorization” when issuing expansive rules.

The uncontrolled growth of the administrative State results from the Executive constantly seeking more power, courts that, until recently, fostered the expansion of executive power, and a Congress that has failed to provide aggressive oversight of agency actions and spending. If the courts continue to restrain the expansion of agency power, reform of the administrative State will be accomplished without Congress performing its constitutional duties.

If the U.S. Supreme Court, in its next deference case, adopts reasoning similar to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision and it actually enforces its “Major Questions Doctrine,” it will put federal agencies back into their constitutional boxes. At that point, going forward, all that is needed to maintain our constitutional separation of powers is for each branch to do its job by constantly checking the powers of competing branches.

.

The post Congress Fails, Courts Prevail in Reforming Out-of-Control Federal Agencies appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.