Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Regulations replace rule of law

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
We’ve heard this repeated over and over again. Some folks contend this is untrue. In fact, by law, it was true, which explains a part of what’s wrong with government.
Constitutionally, laws are established through a process of debate and eventual agreement between the legislative branches and executive branch of government.
However, starting decades ago, government decided to work beyond its Constitutional bounds, controlling our retirement, health care, educational systems, student loans, etc. To manage this, it created, what I call, a “fourth branch” of government: “Departments” such as EPA, Education, HHS, Energy, etc., all run by politically selected bureaucrats who establish “regulations” within their areas of responsibility.    
Given enormous powers, these entities are now significantly impacting lives of individuals and the viability of businesses with no accountability to the electorate.
Their power has grown to the point where, often, the laws passed by Congress are not nearly as consequential as the regulations developed as a part of the implementation or interpretation of the law.  
Nancy Pelosi was correct, unfortunately, when she said we needed to pass the Obamacare law so we could see what was in it.
She knew it was incomplete, and the regulators/bureaucrats in HHS and IRS would be “filling in the blanks” in over 700 areas of the law, changing it significantly.
Last count, the 2,700-page law has 20,000 pages of regulations and is growing. One could say Congress wrote 10 percent of the Obamacare law; regulators, the rest.  
So, the president was correct in his quote of the unaltered Obamacare law. Yes, old policies were grandfathered, so you could keep your policies and doctors. However, the bureaucrats’ regulations forced insurance companies to cancel existing policies if one word, one price or one benefit in the policy changed. And Jay Carney correctly noted insurance policies change all the time, every year.  
Therefore, the stage was set. The law and regulations completely contradicted each other. What would we go by?  
There are arguments about how much was known when and by whom. But the bottom line is, when the decision was made as to what took precedent in this case, it was the regulation written by a bureaucrat, not the law passed by the Congress that won the day.      
This regulatory preeminence has allowed bureaucrats to write regulations that are destroying the coal industry, affecting local school districts, loading states with unfunded mandates, restricting political organizations, destroying farming in central California, and eliminating three towns in Wyoming from the United States against an act of Congress and the desires of the State of Wyoming.  
There are places where regulations are needed. However, as discussed here, regulations can permanently change laws passed by Congress without consulting Congress.
Since it takes full congressional action to override most regulations, regulatory rule-making is more consequential to us than legislative law-making.
This moves us further and further from the representative government defined by the Constitution. This is not good.