The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, clearly outlines the framework and boundaries of our government. Among the most critical provisions is Article I, Section 1, which vests all legislative powers in a Congress consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. Despite this clarity, the modern landscape of American law has expanded to include administrative law, case law, regulations, and executive orders—none of which were envisioned by the framers as legitimate sources of legislation. This article contends that these forms of lawmaking are unconstitutional, violating the explicit intent of the founders and the clear text of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 1: The Exclusive Legislative Power of Congress
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “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.” The word “all” leaves no room for ambiguity or delegation. The framers intended for the elected representatives of the people to be the sole source of lawmaking authority.
James Madison, often hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” emphasized the importance of this separation of powers. In Federalist No. 47, Madison wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” This statement underscores the danger of allowing non-legislative bodies to exercise legislative powers.
The Rise of Administrative Law
Administrative law refers to the rules and regulations created by executive agencies. These agencies often derive their authority from vague statutes passed by Congress, granting them broad discretion to interpret and implement laws. This practice is antithetical to the Constitution’s delegation of legislative power.
Thomas Jefferson warned against this kind of overreach. In a letter to Spencer Roane in 1819, Jefferson wrote,
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
Allowing administrative agencies to create binding rules effectively makes the Constitution a “blank paper,” as it circumvents the explicit process for creating laws.
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of unconstitutional delegation in cases such as A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), where the Court invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that it delegated excessive legislative power to the President. The Court held that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other bodies, reinforcing the constitutional principle that only Congress can make laws.
The Problem with Case Law
Case law, or judicial precedent, is another form of lawmaking not authorized by the Constitution. While the judiciary has the power to interpret laws and the Constitution, it does not have the power to create law. Article III of the Constitution grants the judiciary the authority to adjudicate cases and controversies, not to legislate from the bench.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of government because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse.” Hamilton’s assurance that the judiciary would remain constrained to interpreting laws has been undermined by the practice of judicial activism, where courts create new legal standards and principles through their rulings.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the principle of judicial review, stating that
“a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
While judicial review allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, it does not grant them the power to create new laws. The principle that an unconstitutional law is void highlights the importance of adhering strictly to the Constitution’s text and original intent.
Regulations: A Constitutional Overreach
Regulations, often issued by executive agencies, function as laws despite not being passed by Congress. These regulations can have significant impacts on individuals and businesses, effectively creating new legal obligations without the constitutional process of legislative approval.
In J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), the Supreme Court upheld the delegation of regulatory authority to executive agencies, provided that Congress laid down an “intelligible principle” to guide the agencies. However, this decision has been criticized for allowing an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads (2015), argued that the “intelligible principle” standard has led to a significant erosion of the separation of powers, enabling agencies to exercise legislative functions.
Executive Orders: Bypassing the Legislature
Executive orders are directives issued by the President to manage the operations of the federal government. While the Constitution grants the President executive power, it does not provide the authority to make laws. Executive orders often extend beyond administrative functions and into areas of significant policy making, effectively bypassing Congress.
George Washington issued the first executive orders, primarily administrative in nature. However, the scope and frequency of executive orders have expanded dramatically. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued over 3,700 executive orders during his time in office, many of which had substantial impacts on law and policy.
The Supreme Court addressed the limits of executive orders in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where it invalidated President Truman’s order to seize steel mills during the Korean War. The Court held that Truman had overstepped his authority, emphasizing that the President cannot legislate. Justice Robert Jackson’s concurrence outlined a framework for evaluating executive power, asserting that executive orders are weakest when they conflict with the expressed or implied will of Congress.
Returning to Constitutional Principles
To restore constitutional governance, we must reaffirm the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. This involves reining in the power of administrative agencies, limiting judicial activism, curbing the overreach of executive orders, and ensuring that all laws are passed through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) established the “Chevron deference,” a doctrine that compels courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes. This deference undermines the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws and allows agencies to expand their regulatory power. Overturning or limiting Chevron deference would be a crucial step toward reasserting the proper balance of power.
Moreover, Congress must take a more active role in legislating and overseeing the actions of administrative agencies and the executive branch. The REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act) is a legislative proposal that would require congressional approval for any major rule proposed by an executive agency. Enacting such reforms would help ensure that all laws and regulations reflect the will of the people’s representatives, as intended by the framers.
Conclusion
Administrative law, case law, regulations, and executive orders represent a departure from the constitutional principles established by the framers. Article I, Section 1 clearly vests all legislative powers in Congress, and any deviation from this mandate is unconstitutional. By reaffirming the exclusive legislative authority of Congress and limiting the power of administrative agencies, the judiciary, and the executive branch, we can return to a system of government that respects the Constitution and the intent of the founders.
As James Madison eloquently stated in Federalist No. 51,
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
Restoring constitutional governance requires us to uphold the separation of powers and ensure that all laws are made by the people’s elected representatives, as intended by the framers of our Constitution.
Peter Serefine is a Patriot Academy Constitution Coach, Instructor for Institute on the Constitution, Author, Navy Veteran, and PA State Constable
Homepage: https://www.liberty-lighthouse.com
Follow Peter: Substack – Facebook – YouTube – Twitter – Truth Social – Frank Social
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN.
If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN
1 thought on “The Unconstitutionality of Administrative Law, Case Law, Regulations, and Executive Orders”