Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state

[jmdrake]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=c6a8cb14d61c4a35a53f8f579840f831&ei=10

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act in the Senate on Thursday.

His bill intended to take action to “put power back in the people’s hands instead of the administrative state,” read a press release about the bill. This specifically applies to the current process involving legislation in the government in which regulations go into effect unless explicitly disapproved by Congress. Under Paul’s proposal in the REINS Act, major rules would need to be approved by the legislative branch before going to the president for signature and approval.

“The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process,” read the text of the bill. “Section 1 of article I of the Constitution of the United States grants all legislative powers to Congress.”

Additionally, Paul’s REINS Act highlighted a recent history of a reduction in oversight and accountability in legislation that is passed by Congress.

“Over time, Congress has excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability for the content of the laws it passes,” read the bill. “By requiring a vote in Congress, this Act will result in more carefully drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the American people for the laws imposed upon them.”

If passed, the REINS ACT would ensure any rule proposal would satisfy “the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution.”

“The whims of an unaccountable administrative state should never rule our lives,” Paul said in a release. “For too long, an ever-growing federal bureaucracy has piled regulations and red tape on the backs of the American people without any approval by Americans’ elected representatives. By making Congress more accountable for the most costly and intrusive federal rules, our REINS Act would give Kentuckians and all Americans a greater voice in determining whether these major rules are truly in America’s best interests.”

Paul has introduced a version of the REINS Act “every Congress since he has been in office.” There were a couple of notable changes to this year’s version. First, it included a right for people to sue the federal government if “an agency implements a major rule without getting congressional approval.” Second, this year’s version included a “Liberty Act,” which required any “agency guidance with an economic impact of $100 million or more” required the approval of Congress.

Multiple Senate Republicans joined Paul in cosponsoring the bill, including Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Katie Britt (R-AL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rick Scott (R-FL), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), among others.

“The REINS Act is desperately needed,” said George Landrith, president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute. “We hear a lot about defending democracy today, but we don’t see much real effort from the administrative state to honor the principles of democracy. Senator Paul’s updated REINS Act will make sure that the people’s representatives in Congress will have to approve of any major rules proposed by an unelected administrative agency.”
​

 

[TheTexan]

While this bill is good, I guess? It just kinda seems silly. Silly that we've let it get to this point and this is the best we can do?

Beg our masters for an additional layer of bureaucracy before adding new rules against us?

 

[jmdrake]

While this bill is good, I guess? It just kinda seems silly. Silly that we've let it get to this point and this is the best we can do?

Beg our masters for an additional layer of bureaucracy before adding new rules against us?

It's taking power back from the bureauracy and requiring a vote by congress. Bureauracts don't have to get re-elected. Congress does. The current standard is that the bureauracrats have to put up their new rules for public comment which is supposed to mean something but really doesn't.

 

[TheTexan]

It's taking power back from the bureauracy and requiring a vote by congress. Bureauracts don't have to get re-elected. Congress does. The current standard is that the bureauracrats have to put up their new rules for public comment which is supposed to mean something but really doesn't.

Yea but that kind of implies that congress is somehow gonna be better custodians of power than the bureaucrats which isn't gonna be true

 

[jmdrake]

Yea but that kind of implies that congress is somehow gonna be better custodians of power than the bureaucrats which isn't gonna be true

So do you think Congress would have passed the pistol brace ban?

 

[TheTexan]

So do you think Congress would have passed the pistol brace ban?

Probably yea

 

[Occam's Banana]

Neither Congress nor Executive-branch bureaucrats should be permitted to do most of the things they do.

In the end, does it really matter which group of clowns is driving the clown car, and which group is "riding shotgun bulb-horn"?

 

[jmdrake]

Probably yea

Well..considering that the pistol brace ban didn't not get passed after the ATF rule got struck down by the courts it seems the answer is no.

Neither Congress nor Executive-branch bureaucrats should be permitted to do most of the things they do.

In the end, does it really matter which group of clowns is driving the clown car, and which group is "riding shotgun bulb-horn"?

The administrative state clown car drives much faster.

https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-...-popular-accountability-domestic-policymaking

Agencies regulate through a combination of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions by issuing rules with the force of law, policing those rules, and adjudicating their enforcement. In 2021, for example, the Biden administration issued 3,257 regulations with the force and effect of law, whereas Congress passed 81 laws during that time. The last available year for comprehensive data about administrative adjudications is 2013, when the five busiest agencies convened 1,351,342 executive branch tribunals; that same year, there were 57,777 total cases (civil and criminal) filed in the U.S. district and appellate courts.​

 

[TheTexan]

Well..considering that the pistol brace ban didn't not get passed after the ATF rule got struck down by the courts it seems the answer is no.

Give it time lol

 

[Occam's Banana]

The administrative state clown car drives much faster.

That's why I qualified my statement by saying "In the end [...]".

The destination is t he same, either way.

https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-...-popular-accountability-domestic-policymaking

Agencies regulate through a combination of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions by issuing rules with the force of law, policing those rules, and adjudicating their enforcement. In 2021, for example, the Biden administration issued 3,257 regulations with the force and effect of law, whereas Congress passed 81 laws during that time. The last available year for comprehensive data about administrative adjudications is 2013, when the five busiest agencies convened 1,351,342 executive branch tribunals; that same year, there were 57,777 total cases (civil and criminal) filed in the U.S. district and appellate courts.​

The whole reason "agencies regulate through a combination of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions [...]" is because Congress allows them to do so.

Hell, Congress wants them to do so. It let's them "pass the buck" on their own responsibilities, and then "wash their hands" of any problems that occur later by performatively sputtering with indignation over this, that, or the other thing ("How could this happen?! Why is this allowed?! blarg-blarg-blarg!!") - mostly for outrage-farming and fund-raising purposes. Meanwhile, the worst that happens to the executive bureaucrats is that some of them occasionally have to put up with sitting in front of some Congressional committee and being ranted at for while ("blarg-blarg-blarg!!"), with little or nothing else in the way of any actual accountability.

It's why they don't do "old-fashioned" things like "declare war" any more. If things go well, they can claim credit for supporting it - but if things go badly, they can just blame POTUS and/or the executive administration/bureaucracy.

The overweening executive plantation exists and operates as it does because (with extremely few exceptions, such as Rand Paul), that's the way Congress likes and wants it.

I don't see any reason to think that's going to change. Why would it? What's the incentive?

The only serious change of any significance we've seen in this regard is when the "Chevron doctrine" was overturned.

But that was thanks to SCOTUS, not Congress.

Congress is not coming to save us ...

 

[jmdrake]

That's why I qualified my statement by saying "In the end [...]".

The destination is t he same, either way.



The whole reason "agencies regulate through a combination of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions [...]" is because Congress allows them to do so.

Hell, Congress wants them to do so. It let's them "pass the buck" on their own responsibilities, and then "wash their hands" of any problems that occur later by performatively sputtering with indignation over this, that, or the other thing ("How could this happen?! Why is this allowed?! blarg-blarg-blarg!!") - mostly for outrage-farming and fund-raising purposes. Meanwhile, the worst that happens to the executive bureaucrats is that some of them occasionally have to put up with sitting in front of some Congressional committee and being ranted at for while ("blarg-blarg-blarg!!"), with little or nothing else in the way of any actual accountability.

It's why they don't do "old-fashioned" things like "declare war" any more. If things go well, they can claim credit for supporting it - but if things go badly, they can just blame POTUS and/or the executive administration/bureaucracy.

The overweening executive plantation exists and operates as it does because (with extremely few exceptions, such as Rand Paul), that's the way Congress likes and wants it.

I don't see any reason to think that's going to change. Why would it? What's the incentive?

The only serious change of any significance we've seen in this regard is when the "Chevron doctrine" was overturned.

But that was thanks to SCOTUS, not Congress.

Congress is not coming to save us ...

I'm sure if Rand had been on the Supreme Court he would have voted to strike down Chevron Deference. And if this law had been passed sooner the Court wouldn't have NEEDED to strike down Chevron Deference. So Rand is doing exactly what it seems you're saying needs to be done. And Court decisions can be reversed. The left is now kicking itself for not codifying Roe v Wade with federal legislation when Obama was president and they had the house and a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. The republicans don't have that 2/3rds majority so this may be tilting at windmills, but if the Dems are forced to vote to protect bureaucracy that is also a win.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm sure if Rand had been on the Supreme Court he would have voted to strike down Chevron Deference. And if this law had been passed sooner the Court wouldn't have NEEDED to strike down Chevron Deference.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

So Rand is doing exactly what it seems you're saying needs to be done.

As I previously said (bold emphasis added):

The overweening executive plantation exists and operates as it does because (with extremely few exceptions, such as Rand Paul), that's the way Congress likes and wants it.

And Court decisions can be reversed.

So can any act of Congress.

My point in citing the Chevron doctrine as an example was not that the SCOTUS overturn is some kind of ever-lasting fix.

My point is that it wasn't Congress that ended up nixing it (as they ought to have done - because the rule-making authority that Chevron granted to the executive plantation is literally supposed to be Congress' purview in the first place).

If it was going to happen at all, it pretty much had to be SCOTUS - because Congress had, has, and will have, little or no desire to do any such thing. Why would they?

(BTW, I think this is why the strategy of organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Institute for Justice (IJ) - which seek to achieve their goals through the courts - seems to be much more effective than the strategy of similar organizations that expend their resources on trying to accomplish their goals by lobbying Congress and endorsing politicians.)

The left is now kicking itself for not codifying Roe v Wade with federal legislation when Obama was president and they had the house and a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

That just reinforces my point. It was SCOTUS that (eventually) had to act on Roe v. Wade, because Congress is more interested in shirking its responsibilities than in fulfilling them. (Hell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg even explicitly warned them about what was going happen if they didn't do something, and they still didn't act - despite how relatively easy it would have been to deal with the matter by exploiting that 2/3rds majority.)

The republicans don't have that 2/3rds majority so this may be tilting at windmills, but if the Dems are forced to vote to protect bureaucracy that is also a win.

Republicans (with, as noted, a few rare exceptions, such as Rand Paul - or Mike Lee) do not want a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy any more than the Democrats do. We know this because, as the saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". If Congress ever actually wanted a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy, then that is what we would have.

Or as Robert Higgs might put it: "The lack of a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy is not a failure - it is, in fact, a resounding success."

"When we take a realistic view of the political process, we see that so-called failed polices are nearly always spectacular successes. Otherwise, they wouldn’t last. [... S]how me a government policy that clashes with the interests of a substantial number of powerful government officials and their resourceful supporters in the private sector, and I’ll show you a policy that can be abandoned overnight." -- Robert Higgs, The Myth of "Failed" Policies (1995)

"There are no failed government policies - at least, none that last very long." -- Robert Higgs (2009)

All Government Policies Succeed in the Long Run -- Robert Higgs (2013)
​

 

[jmdrake]

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.



As I previously said (bold emphasis added):

​

So can any act of Congress.

My point in citing the Chevron doctrine as an example was not that the SCOTUS overturn is some kind of ever-lasting fix.

My point is that it wasn't Congress that ended up nixing it (as they ought to have done - because the rule-making authority that Chevron granted to the executive plantation is literally supposed to be Congress' purview in the first place).

If it was going to happen at all, it pretty much had to be SCOTUS - because Congress had, has, and will have, little or no desire to do any such thing. Why would they?

(BTW, I think this is why the strategy of organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Institute for Justice (IJ) - which seek to achieve their goals through the courts - seems to be much more effective than the strategy of similar organizations that expend their resources on trying to accomplish their goals by lobbying Congress and endorsing politicians.)



That just reinforces my point. It was SCOTUS that (eventually) had to act on Roe v. Wade, because Congress is more interested in shirking its responsibilities than in fulfilling them. (Hell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg even explicitly warned them about what was going happen if they didn't do something, and they still didn't act - despite how relatively easy it would have been to deal with the matter by exploiting that 2/3rds majority.)



Republicans (with, as noted, a few rare exceptions, such as Rand Paul - or Mike Lee) do not want a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy any more than the Democrats do. We know this because, as the saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". If Congress ever actually wanted a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy, then that is what we would have.

Or as Robert Higgs might put it: "The lack of a limited and accountable executive bureaucracy is not a failure - it is, in fact, a resounding success."

"When we take a realistic view of the political process, we see that so-called failed polices are nearly always spectacular successes. Otherwise, they wouldn’t last. [... S]how me a government policy that clashes with the interests of a substantial number of powerful government officials and their resourceful supporters in the private sector, and I’ll show you a policy that can be abandoned overnight." -- Robert Higgs, The Myth of "Failed" Policies (1995)

"There are no failed government policies - at least, none that last very long." -- Robert Higgs (2009)

All Government Policies Succeed in the Long Run -- Robert Higgs (2013)
​

So I thought your argument was that if Rand were able to pull it off it would just make things worse or at the very least not any better. But it seems now that your argument is that it's unlikely he'll ever get this passed. If the former than I disagree. If the latter than I can't say you're wrong but I don't think it's bad to at least try.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So I thought your argument was that if Rand were able to pull it off it would just make things worse or at the very least not any better.

No. I never made any such argument. (I even went out of my way to explicitly exempt Rand from my remarks about Congress in general.)

I think it would be great "if Rand were able to pull it off" - but most of the rest of Congress has no incentive to let him do so.

Just the opposite, in fact. All the incentives run in the other direction.

But it seems now that your argument is that it's unlikely he'll ever get this passed.

That isn't just my argument "now" - it was my argument from the start.

Congress is not coming to save us from an overweening and unaccountable executive plantation.

Why would they? They demonstrably like and want this to be the way it is - otherwise, they wouldn't let it continue being that way.

If they really wanted to handle the "hot potato" of responsibility for actually limiting the executive bureaucracy and actively holding it accountable, then they'd never have tossed it away (e.g., by deferring their authority to the executive) in the first place.

If the former than I disagree. If the latter than I can't say you're wrong but I don't think it's bad to at least try.

Despite that I think the effort is doomed, I didn't say it would be "bad to at least try".

If nothing else, trying would at least more clearly identify many of our enemies on this issue as such.

It might also somewhat help to identify our allies - but not as accurately, since it is not uncommon for weasel politicians to falsely support something they know has no chance of passing (or, conversely, to falsely oppose something they know has no chance of failing), just so they can "save face" with some constituency.