Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez. View…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Ramirez Cartoon: The Obama Administration

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.…[more]

October 20, 2014 • 11:52 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Press Releases
Coalition Urges Support of "REINS Act" Print E-mail
Monday, October 28 2013

Download the PDF version of the letter here.

October 28, 2013

Dear Member of the United States Senate:

We, the undersigned public interest organizations, write to urge you to support the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013 (the “REINS Act”). This bill restores legislative control and accountability to the federal regulatory process by providing for meaningful congressional oversight over new regulations agencies imposed on the American people. It requires both houses of Congress to approve any proposed “major rule”—that is, any rule likely to affect the economy by $100 million or more—before such a rule goes into effect. The REINS Act already passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a sizeable margin. (H.R. 367, passed Aug. 2, 2013). It is now time for the Senate to follow suit.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 47 that the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Despite Madison’s warning, federal agencies increasingly make rules based loosely on federal laws, enforce these rules against private parties and adjudicate enforcement actions before administrative law judges who serve the executive branch.

“The accumulation of these powers in the same hands is not an occasional or isolated exception to the constitutional plan,” warns John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States; rather, “it is a central feature of modern American government.” (Roberts’ dissent inCity of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1878 (2013)). Professor Jonathan Turley, writing in The Washington Post, argues “[o]ur carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.” (“The rise of the fourth branch of government,” Washington Post, May 25, 2013).

The REINS Act, therefore, aims to ensure Congress monitors the laws it writes and considers how they affect the American people. This is especially important given that annual regulatory compliance costs amounted to $1.8 trillion in 2012, which, for the first time, was more than half of all federal outlays ($3.4 trillion), according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 2013 report, “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.” The REINS Act curtails some of the executive branch’s authority, but it respects our Constitution’s structure.

As Professor Jonathan Adler writes, “[w]hile the REINS Act would reduce the discretion of executive and independent agencies to adopt far-reaching regulatory measures, it would neither interfere with core executive functions nor constrain the inherent discretionary authority of the executive branch.” (“Placing ‘Reins’ On Regulations: Assessing the Proposed REINS Act,” 16 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2013).)

We recognize some federal regulations may deliver net benefits to the American people. Importantly, the REINS Act does not prevent agencies from promulgating such regulations, nor does it discourage Congress from approving them. Rather, the bill merely ensures major new rules—whether beneficial or otherwise—face the meaningful scrutiny of the peoples’ representatives in Congress. The REINS Act offers Congress an opportunity to reaffirm beneficial agency rules, yet still reject rules which do more harm than good. The bill thus rebalances the power dynamic in Washington, giving it back to those who are accountable to the American people—at the expense of unelected bureaucrats. Our Constitution demands nothing less.

Sincerely,

Lawson Bader
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Wayne Brough
FreedomWorks

Christine Hanson
Americans for Prosperity

David Williams
Taxpayer’s Protection Alliance

John Tate
Campaign for Liberty

Joseph Bast
The Heartland Institute

Coley Jackson
Freedom Action

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Seton Motley
Less Government

Larry Hart
American Conservative Union

James Martin
60 Plus Association

Timothy H. Lee
Center for Individual Freedom

Andrew Moylan
R Street

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

 


Page 12 of 98
Question of the Week   
Which of the following Cold War events led to the establishment of the “Hotline,” a direct telephone link between the White House and the Kremlin?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[I]t's up to Republicans to expose the bureaucracies and criticize the orthodoxies -- to ask why visas for travel to the United States are still being issued in West Africa and why American military forces are being deployed there without a workable plan or intelligible purpose, why CDC spending priorities are so skewed and CDC management so weak, and why here at home routine police powers aren't…[more]
 
 
—William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Editor
— William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Editor
 
Liberty Poll   

In dealing with deadly and difficult-to-curtail infectious diseases such as Ebola, should government-imposed travel bans and quarantines supersede civil liberty and other concerns?