By Scott Tibbs, August 6, 2013
When the founders drafted our Constitution, they separated the powers of the federal government into the legislative, executive and judicial branches in addition to balancing powers between the federal government and the states. Federal legislation would be passed by Congress rather than by executive fiat - because then we would have a King rather than a President.
It is good news for those who cherish the rule of law, then, that Indiana's own Todd Young introduced legislation that would require "major rules" to be approved by Congress before they go into effect. People on the left, right and center have expressed concerns for decades now about the "imperial presidency" - the continual flow of power from Congress to the President that has continued under Presidents of both political parties.
This is not the first time Young has done this.
This seems relatively simple: The legislative branch should be writing legislation, rather than the executive branch. This should not be controversial. It would not repeal any existing regulations (unfortunately) but would properly restore power to Congress. The extent that it is unpopular should be an indication as to how much power has flowed to the President - power he was never intended to have. Statists who cannot expand the powers of government through the legislative process instead do so through the executive branch, making an end-run around the checks and balances in our Constitution.
While this has virtually no chance of passing, Young should nonetheless be praised for trying to move the debate forward and putting political pressure on an important issue that has been ignored for far too long. If we cannot get this through Congress, perhaps a lawsuit is in order with the hope that the judicial branch will restore the proper balance of power as established in our Constitution. One can hope, at least.