Most Americans see little difference between a federal law passed by Congress and a rule issued by a president. Both are legally enforced mandates handed down from Washington. And increasingly, federal rules, not legislation, are serving as the law in America.
Americans rightfully want to know how the administrative state is able to place such burdens on them in the face of congressional inaction. The Constitution is abundantly clear about which branch is responsible for crafting laws: “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.”
Now, in many instances, members of Congress conveniently shirk responsibility by simply telling Americans that the regulatory issues they face are the fault of the executive branch. They fail to mention that it was Congress that delegated much of its power to the president over the past several decades.
Over time, the constant delegations of authority have created extremely powerful federal agencies capable of effectively creating law without further congressional authorization or accountability. Recent presidents have argued that they are simply using the fullest extent of their power to respond to the issues of the day.
The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, introduced by Rep. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., aims to increase the accountability of our elected officials. The REINS Act would require Congress and the president to affirm major federal rules with an economic impact of $100 million or more before they could be enforced.
The House passed the bill earlier this year, but it died in Harry Reid’s Senate. With Republicans taking control of the Senate, the REINS Act should be one of the first laws passed in 2015.
The debate over President Obama’s Clean Power Plan unveiled earlier this summer illustrates why the REINS Act is so important.
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that no Congress has ever sent legislation to a president’s desk contemplating carbon regulation. Aggressive carbon restrictions failed to pass even when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate during Obama’s first term.
With its attempt to pass carbon regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency is essentially using a delegation of congressional authority made in 1970 to write a new law in 2014. Obama is “interpreting” a delegation of congressional authority more than four decades old, which never envisioned carbon dioxide as a regulated gas, to create a policy that could not pass in the current Congress.
The REINS Act would require current members of Congress and the president to ratify most significant regulations that the American people are forced to comply with. If the REINS Act were in effect today, the House and Senate would have been forced to vote on 65 rules that took effect in 2014. Many if not most of those rules would have quickly moved through without controversy. Yet, even with those few votes, Congress would have to answer to the American people for both the laws it passes and the major rules created using the powers it gave away.
The bottom line is that if presidents are going to use borrowed congressional authority to craft burdensome rules that deeply affect the entire nation, then those presidents and members of Congress should have to state unequivocally where they stand on those rules. The American people deserve a government that is more accountable for what it does.
Cameron Smith is national director of the Liberty Foundation of America and worked on the REINS Act as a congressional staffer. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
