The fourth branch

From Professor Turley:

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.

. . .

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

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.

. . .

The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court.

. . .

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.

Nothing new to my readers, but worth sharing.

5 Responses to The fourth branch

  1. VXXC says:

    Saw it. 80 years into Administrative Government the NYT notices.

  2. ErisGuy@gmail.com says:

    “The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority.”

    This is categorically false. The administrative state exists because Congress surrendered its authority voluntarily, and each time it did so, it won re-election. The Supreme Court approved this violation of the Constitution and President(s) have loved it. All three branches colluded in this tyranny.

    Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR’s brain trust (a Communist or fellow-traveller), wanted to amend the Constitution to make the bureaucracy a fourth, elected branch of government—an admission Congress will not and cannot govern.

    • Foseti says:

      I agree that congress gave up its authority voluntarily. That doesn’t mean the bureaucracy hasn’t gained at congress’ expense nonetheless.

  3. […] The growth of the fourth branch of government. […]

Leave a comment