As you can tell by the podcasts and writing I've been doing, I think what has been happening with the Supreme Court is very significant. I wanted to write something that takes into account all four significant decisions - on vaccine mandates, the EPA, abortion, and guns - and what they mean for the future of the so-called republic.

The recent SCOTUS decisions on vaccine mandates, gun regulation, abortion, and the EPA are flawed from a strict constructionist perspective. Rather than striking down 20th century theories underpinning decisions which unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the executive branch and the federal government in general, respectively, the Court instead tried to set limits to the ways in which those doctrines could be applied.

 

Still, insofar as these decisions represent a change in direction, rather than the last word on these issues, they may provide a roadmap out of the political acrimony that is tearing American society apart.

 

The legislative power

 

In ruling against President Biden’s vaccine mandates and the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” the Court makes reference to a long-ignored principle called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which posits that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to delegate its legislative power to the executive.

 

In other words, when the Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” it means no legislative powers are vested in the executive.

 

Strictly applied, this principle would mean striking down the New Deal, root and branch. Although there were examples of limited rulemaking by executive branch regulatory agencies prior to the 1930s, it was FDR’s coup that created and empowered to legislate the myriad “alphabet soup agencies” within the federal government.

 

Rather than such a radical change, the Court merely set limits to how far beyond legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president regulatory agencies can go in making legally enforceable rules themselves.

 

The “glass half empty” way to look at this is that the Court has further established that the executive branch can legislate – just “not too much.” The opposite view, as expressed by constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman, is that these precedents represent the first indications of the Court turning away from 84 years of bad precedent and back towards a constitutionally limited government.

 

(For my discussions on this subject with Gutzman, see Episodes 1, 28, and 94 of Tom Mullen Talks Freedom).

 

The significance of this question cannot be understated. Garet Garret called the New Deal a “revolution” for good reason – it effectively transformed the U.S. government from its previous republican form to a new, soft form of fascism, with an executive branch issuing fiat commands instead of a legislature representing a diverse constituency writing laws.

 

You can read the rest of this article at my Patreon. If you're not already a subscriber, please consider supporting my efforts there. 

 All Patrons get access to transcripts and my exclusive, Members Only MeWe group, not to mention the deep satisfaction of supporting my efforts from behind enemy lines in New York State.

 

All Access Patrons get all of the above as well as exclusive articles, videos, and other content.

 

VIP Patrons get all of the above plus free access to my online courses and a free, signed copy of the Tom Mullen book of your choice. 

 

Be among the first to come on board at patreon.com/tommullentalksfreedom!