The agencies demand political support for themselves first of all. They are like barons in monarchies, and the King’s problems are secondary. But they can now demand broader support for their political agendas. And the larger partisan political system is discovering how the newly enhanced power of the regulatory state is ideal for enforcing its own political support.
Read the whole thing.
Perhaps the most persistent news story of 2015 has been the way that various policemen have responded with shockingly aggressive use of force when they encountered what they viewed as lack of cooperation, primarily from African-American suspects. Think of that as a metaphor for how regulatory agencies respond when they see lack of cooperation. At least, that is how I read Cochrane.
Emphasis on “story.” I undetstood this almost 2 decades ago. Alomost from birth, really. I am glad people are paying attention now that cameras and Internet make it hard to ignore. Thanks to the news I trust in another 2 decades people will really understand the nature of the beast.
Well, at least the police don’t require their usual suspects to donate to their Fraternal Order and contribute to their ‘Love and Trust the Police’ PSA / marketing campaigns.
The same wasn’t true for the ACA and the political maneuvers to recruit the AMA and health care companies to help with The Cause.
It’s hard to see how this trend wouldn’t overpower any effort in the vein of Charles Murray’s Madison Fund.
I don’t know about 2015, but the fixation on the police “killing” blacks really got started with Michael Brown aka “The Gentle Giant” who really didn’t have his hands up when he was shot. How many interactions do the police have with blacks (and with citizens as a whole) and what percentage are violent? I don’t know, but I suspect the percentage is small. Has it been going up or down? I haven’t seen any data in the news.
But I agree with John Cochrane after reading his post.
Ironically, surely the rate must be going down as the transparency is increasing. But dayam, cops seem really stupid.
And yes, it is weird that the amount of news coverage is in inverse relationship with the justification of use of force.
As previously noted, from following the development of the NWW scholarship, I tend to follow Arnold Kling’s concerns (or ways of viewing) this “problem.”
Cochran’s coverage (and its implications) make his conclusion of “reform,” as a remedy (or even mitigation) strategically inadequate for the preservation of individual liberty. For that objective, the “regulatory state” [The Federal Administrative State -FAS] must first be “contained;” then, “constrained.”
While we observe some “turf wars” and “first response contests,” there is not sufficient evidence of fragmentation in the FAS. The most likely possibilities for power contests may come between the legislative system (including its unelected power groups) and the incumbents of the FAS. This is an issue of power and of the motives for its quest.
From that perspective, the legislative has the power to establish an additional “watchdog” with control over the effective operations of the entire FAS. That means to control the *effects* of all regulatory actions and activities – be they economic, social or upon individual liberty.
That control can be established by the creation of a carefully, properly empowered Court of specific jurisdiction and authorities. An outline for Such a Court was suggested in a post at LibertyLawSite. I will post it separately.
This is very preliminary:
A New Court
Perhaps someone of the competence of Michael Greve might don the mantle of Richard Armey and undertake the design of a Judicial function ancillary to (1) the oversight responsibilities of Congress; and, (2) the “defense funds” suggested by Charles Murray in his “By The People.”
Congress has the powers to create additional courts of particular jurisdiction.
There is, for example, a Court of Claims. There are bankruptcy courts (or courts “sitting” in bankruptcy).
The existing legal system is clogged with matters of the operations of the Federal Administrative State; the blockages of those remedies serve as an instrument for administrative malfunctions of multiple origins.
Congress can create a Court that, upon submissions, can supply what should be the execution of appropriate oversight by Congress – just like “base closings,” that the political process stymies. Such a Court could be given that much jurisdiction and power subject only to legislative “veto” (up or down- no revisions) within a stipulated period (120 days? or the Court’s rule is final, no appeal, equivalent to legislative remedy).
The Court’s jurisdiction shall concern the actual (and demonstratively prospective) effects of the forms and conditions of enforcements (without regard to existing judicial precedents of a general nature) in specific instances. It shall have full injunctive authority through the District Courts and may suspend or terminate any part or all of any regulations or “guidelines & interpretations” etc.. It may terminate an agencies exercise of any and all powers, or particular powers, or set enforceable conditions for their exercise; discipline or remove agency personnel, authorities and any contracting parties.
Only Congress, within stipulated periods of time (which might be in different schedules for different determinations) can set aside (but not modify) its decisions.
This Court might be administered in circuits. Conflicts amongst circuit judgments would be resolved by Congressional action.
Most important, parties affected (even prospectively) would have immediate access; an option to by-pass “agency reviews” and the APA (heart by-pass anyone), and apply for injunctive relief.
It will take some time; care for details; but supplant some of the deficiencies in Congress’s responsibilities – and begin to throttle back rampant regulatory metastasis.
It could begin to revitalize our legal system and timely public access for private litigation.
Under the separation-of-powers construct, would this suggested Court be within the scope of the Judicial branch or Legislative branch?
That also would respond to:
quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
That is all Greek to me!
Isn’t it another example of a closed access order,with no competition or choice in deciding who gets to regulate you?