Michael Farris:
Some people may ask, “Why doesn’t the Supreme Court rule that laws enacted by agencies like the EPA are unconstitutional?” Well, in reality, the Supreme Court has undermined the meaning of Article I, Section 1, and has allowed federal agencies to make laws. In so doing, the Supreme Court itself has legislated—it’s amended the Constitution, not by the formal amendment process, but by the effect of its decision. When the EPA issues rules governing federal wetlands, there are two violations of the moral principle that only legislators can make law—first, by the EPA defining wetlands, and second, by the Supreme Court in permitting administrative agencies to make law.

If we really needed the technical expertise of agencies such as the EPA to create appropriate laws, then the following process would allow such input while still following the constitutional rules on lawmaking: The EPA would draft a desired regulation. The regulation would then be submitted to both the House and the Senate for approval. If both houses approved the regulation, it would be sent to the president where, if it received his signature, it would become law. This process would result in fewer and better laws, and would preserve the fundamental principle of American government.

As vigilant citizens, we must understand these violations and fight to preserve self-government. I’m Mike Farris.