The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government

Washington Post ^ | May 24th, 2013 | Jonathan Turley

[Jacquerie]

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

[MinuteGal]

On several occasions since Obama stole office I've seen a list of his 30-40 (?) appointed czars along with their scary backgrounds and their duties.

Yet I've never seen a list of their salaries. Does anyone have such a list?

It would be interesting. These are patronage jobs which are filled with the most socialist, sleazy and questionable people imagineable.

Or are their salaries a state secret? With Obama, everything corrupt is possible, and usually - probable.

Leni

[Jacquerie]

Well, I am under no illusions. There are plenty who think they have “right” to vote for Senators and El Presidente.

I wouldn't be harping on this that much at FR if I didn't think Mark Levin was winding up to propose the same.

[Jacquerie]

IIRC, FDR, who signed the bill that granted statutory recognition of labor unions, thought it was insane to allow unionization of government workers.

[OneWingedShark]

Ideally the 17th Amendment gets repealed plus make a Senate term 4 years

Nah. Don't alter the term-length, just add a second section prohibiting consecutive terms. {That way a state could appoint a previous good senator if the next one is bad, and it would prevent them from staying in office and building political empires.}

[VRW Conspirator]

I’d suggest reading a few more of Turley’s article. He’s not you typical WaPo barking moonbat leftist

Fair enough.

[dennisw]

Good idea...No consecutive terms. We can dream can’t we? For a return to Federal sanity

[piasa]

bump since it’s relevant today