Tag: bureaucrats

Categories
crime and punishment judiciary regulation

The Court v. the Power Grabbers

bureaucrats, regulations, deep state, law

The U.S. Supreme Court giveth and the U.S. Supreme Court taketh away.

A slew of Supreme Court decisions is keeping us off balance. While we were still reeling from the blow delivered by Murthy v. Missouri’s go-​ahead for federal suppression of social-​media speech, the court also acted to rein in runaway bureaucrats.

The decision, which some call a “major blow to big government”  — let’s see how it plays out before echoing this — is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In this 6 – 3 ruling to limit the administrative state’s power to expand its power, the court reversed its own 1984 ruling, Chevron USA v. NRDC.

According to Stanford Law professor Michael McConnell, Chevron meant that when the actions of a federal agency — to stop you from cleaning up a pond (“wetland”) on your own property or whatever — end up being litigated, courts must “defer to the agency’s own construction of its operating statute” unless that construction is too wildly unreasonable.

Agencies consequently enjoyed “considerable leeway in determining the scope” of what they can do to us. 

Guess what. They typically prefer more power to less, less constitutional restraint to more.

“Chevron is overruled,” the new ruling states. Courts must “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”

Maybe more courts will now more often stop runaway bureaucrats in their tracks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets regulation

Natural vs. Regulated

“I don’t need metabolically unhealthy politicians and obese bureaucrats watching out for my health,” The Telegraph quotes an anonymous source. 

The subject? “How milk became the new culture war dividing America,” published on June 22. It’s a “natural” vs. “technological” debate.

“For more than 130 years, Americans have been instructed that drinking milk that comes directly from a cow’s udder can be dangerous,” Tony Diver’s article begins, but how it ends is telling: “‘With respect to the question of food being natural — arsenic is natural,’ Prof Schaffner said.” And so, too, he says, is cyanide. 

“Sharks are natural. Those things can all kill you. So just because something is natural does not mean that it’s safe.’”

That sounds like something I’d say. 

But is it something to say about raw milk?

Consider the historical context. Raw milk and its products have been produced for human consumption for millennia. Of course there are dangers, and pasteurization has done wonders to curb bacteriological infections and death. Still, a lot of people wonder what we’ve lost in the pasteurization process. Nutrition and immune system health, for example. So for decades — perhaps as long as there have been regulations to make pasteurization mandatory — there’s been a “pro-​natural” backlash.

On the Nature side, we note that our populations aren’t as healthy as you’d expect from the benevolent tyranny of politicians, regulators, and, uh, “obese bureaucrats.”

So, last week, “the latest bill to repeal an outright ban on raw milk hit the governor’s desk in Louisiana, after similar efforts in West Virginia, Iowa, Georgia and North Dakota.”

If signed into law, Louisianans will be able to purchase raw milk in stores — “albeit with a warning, in capital letters, that it is ‘not for human consumption.’

“Everyone, including the legislators, knows that instruction will be ignored.”

There’s something sickness-​inducing about that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT4o and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment Eighth Amendment rights general freedom

The Case of the Narrow Driveway

nanny state, regulations, government, bureaucrats

Sandy Martinez: mother of three, working hard to get by, whole life ahead of her — why would she sabotage it by failing to perfectly park her car in her narrow driveway such that two of the wheels edged onto the grass?

Think I’m making it up? 

No. It’s true. Some people get distracted and treat their grass as if it were gravel and let their car edge onto it.

Why’dja do it Sandy, huh? Why?

On the hand, it’s her property, so who cares? 

What difference does it make? 

Well, mucho … if you’re Lantana, Florida, which fined Sandy $101,750 for imperfect parking, $47,000 because of storm-​inflicted fence damage, $16,000 for cracks in her driveway.

The good news is that Institute for Justice is litigating on behalf of Sandy Martinez and other homeowners being hit with plainly unjust fines for trivial code violations.

IJ argues that the state and local governments at fault are violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. And the Institute and its clients are winning. The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled, in Timbs v. Indiana, that this Eight Amendment ban applies to cities and states as well as to the federal government. 

Many locales, perhaps including Lantana, Florida, may still try to get away with the grift despite this definitive ruling. But sooner or later, some judge will throw out the blatantly excessive fines and point to the recent Supreme Court decision.

Help is on the way, Sandy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability general freedom nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Report from the Lab

bureaucrats, regulation, laws, Idaho, illustration

The State of Idaho does something the federal government should emulate. The only state I can think of that has a popular candy bar named after it has a legislature that regularly nixes regulations made by the state’s executive branch.

Think of it as a line-​item veto for the legislature.

Now, at this point, if you know the Constitution but not today’s “living Constitution,” you might wonder: Don’t legislatures write the regulations? Alas, at the federal level, as in most states, the legislative branch has granted to bureaucrats in the Executive Branch a great deal of leeway to cook up what sure feel like “laws.”

“Last year the Federal Register,” Wayne Hoffman explains in theWall Street Journal, “which publishes agency rules, proposals and notices, exceeded 80,260 pages — the third-​highest in its history, according to a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”

Idaho provides a good model for taking back such ceded legislative power.

Let’s remember the idea of “the several states” experimenting with new and old ideas separately, heralded in a famous phrase, “laboratories of democracy.”

This allows good practices to spread slowly throughout all the states … based on results.

Meanwhile, Mr. Hoffman informs us, Idaho’s practice is traditional, not hallowed in the state’s constitution. A 2014 referendum narrowly failed to get Idahoans to change the constitution to incorporate this “best practice” into explicit law — the legislature had not adequately explained the situation to the public first time around — Idaho solons are trying again.

Make representatives responsible for regulations, and therefore more accountable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

bureaucrats, regulation, laws, Idaho, illustration

 

Illustration: Golconda by René Magritte

 

Categories
Common Sense

Stay Awake for the Brownouts

Years ago, I would actually listen to lectures by economists on how the electric grid might function better. Pretty much only one thing remains in my head, the conclusion: Regulatory agencies and government-​run electrical companies tend to be very inefficient when it comes to capitalizing their enterprises.

Have you nodded off, yet?

Sorry. There’s always been something a bit boring about these discussions. But the subject matter is really worth staying awake for.

Why?

Well, experts predict that in as soon as three years, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland — the area where I live — will be enduring rolling brownouts.

It’s not the fault of PJM, the already-​regulated electric transmission company servicing the area. It’s the fault of members of Virginia’s State Corporation Commission and Maryland’s Public Service Commission.

Yes, ever more people are moving into the area. But the officials in charge of allowing new electric infrastructure to be set in place are refusing to grant permission to lay down the miles of new high-​voltage electric lines the increasing demand requires.

What’s their rationale? Board members say they need more studies. Bureaucrats love studies. Could it be that friends and family and business partners of the board would be amongst those doing the studies?

I bet economists would have a less incendiary explanation. But the upshot is clear. Bureaucracies can be dangerously slow institutions to rest progress upon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

The Little Boy Who Almost Could

One thing about toddler Mikolaj Sobolewski: He sure shows initiative.

The three-​year-​old Polish boy unlocked the front door to his home by himself, took the bus to the airport by himself, and apparently expected to board a plane.

Police found him at the airport and returned him to his parents, who, of course, were quite relieved. The police say there is “no suggestion of negligence on their part.” The kid just found his chance and took it.

It seems Mikolaj’s mom works near an airport in Warsaw and the boy had seen a lot of planes flying past her office. He wanted to see what it was like to be on one. He’d done enough dreaming about it, I guess, and decided to just do it.

Mikolaj made a mistake. He didn’t have enough information about how to fulfill his desire. He didn’t give enough thought to how his parents would feel when they found him missing. I know I’d have been worried sick if one of my own children at age three pulled the same disappearing act.

You might say that young Mikolaj has some growing up to do. All the same, we’ve got to give the boy credit for spunk, don’t we?

Write that name down and see if we hear about him again in twenty or thirty years. Mikolaj Sobolewski.

I don’t think he’ll grow up to be a bureaucrat.

Here’s hoping you and your kids have a great summer. Keep track of each other. And happy flying!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.