Many of us are dismayed by the explosive growth of the out-of-control Federal bureaucracies in Washington. How did this happen? Who voted to give these agencies so much power?
For centuries, politicians and bureaucrats have been seduced by the opportunity to hold power over others, probably since long before history has been recorded. These trends are cyclic, often ending in war or natural disaster, only to start again. The cycles are rarely interrupted by an infusion of common sense. That may be changing.
When the EPA was founded in 1970, there was a clear and urgent need for the agency. Pollution was out of control and there was ample evidence of rapidly increasing levels of environmental devastation across broad swaths of the country. The new agency got to work quickly and within less than a decade, great strides were made in reducing and in many cases reversing the environmental destruction that had previously occurred. Lakes and streams cleared up, smog disappeared from cities, and millions of homes were connected to sewage treatment systems that didn’t previously exist.
When a goal is achieved or a job is done, any rational person or business would put that program on maintenance mode, shut down the no longer required activities, and move on to some other productive function. That doesn’t occur in bureaucracies, especially large federally funded ones. Instead, the EPA minions dug in and searched for more areas that could be subject to their domain, stretching the rules as they went along.
There was some opposition to the agency’s power creep which culminated in a Chevron, U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Supreme Court ruling which allowed the EPA to define the meaning or intent of any legislation left ambiguous by Congress. Basically, the EPA could make up its own rules wherever there was any ambiguity in the original legislation. This opened the door to all sorts of expansive interpretations by not only the EPA but many other Federal agencies, giving them the opportunity to create new rules and restrictions based on their own interpretation of the original law.
Today we have the EPA setting rules for mud puddles in your backyard since one could argue those mud puddles are part of the watershed that supports streams and rivers which eventually become navigable waterways over which the EPA has jurisdiction.
Talk about stretching the rules!
This same principle often referred to as the Chevron deference or Chevron doctrine, has been adopted by most of the federal agencies in Washington and is used to solidify and expand their various authorities, often well beyond those authorities originally granted by Congress.
A Supreme Court decision in 1984 paved the way for our present bloated government!
There is hope.
Late last year the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of TWISM Enterprises v. State Board of Registration, reported in the January 9th edition of the Wall Street Journal, where Ohio Justice DeWine wrote “the judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.” The agency’s view “is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court’s own independent judgment as to what the law is.” While this decision directly impacts the state government agencies in Ohio, it can and hopefully will become a basis for taking similar positions against Federal government overreach through various federal agencies.
There are signs the courts and the legal community are moving away from the disastrous Chevron precedent.
Last week’s raucous exercise in choosing the Speaker for the House of Representatives also reveals positive support for changing the direction of Washington. Many of the changes in House Rules demanded by the holdouts during the election process are designed to move power away from centralized control and back to the elected members of Congress. That should set the stage for them to review and pass legislation that is detailed and specific, rather than produce ambiguous documents that leave room for questionable interpretation and other bureaucratic mischiefs.
It's up to us to closely monitor and continuously push our representatives to do the right thing, to thoroughly review any proposed legislation in detail, and to ensure that any legislation is unambiguous and beyond tampering with by unelected bureaucrats.
You can also support the efforts of the Convention of States, an organization dedicated to reigning in the excesses of the Federal government by imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the powers and jurisdictions of the federal government and its agencies, and imposing term limits on government officials and members of Congress.
Learn more about this at the Convention of States website. Take action by signing the petition. Get involved. Volunteer your time and talent as part of America's largest grassroots army.
Let’s continue to build momentum and rally against the cancerous growth of our federal government and the resulting insidious erosion of our basic rights and freedoms.
