Tag Archive for: Executive Overreach

Biden, Trump, and the Imperial Presidency

/in , , , , , , /by

American presidents in the 21st century have been drifting towards populism, displaying a heightened sensitivity toward (and reliance on) public opinion and impulses (at least part of the public). This trend is not wrong in itself, but it unlocks dangerous side effects which, if left unchecked, could spell disaster for our republic. One such side effect is the growing executive tendency to simply do what it likes, regardless of what the law says, and dare anyone to stop it.

Sometimes, those dares are answered. Earlier this year, a coalition of attorneys general from Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over its unilateral imposition of tariffs on nearly every country in the world. The argument, in a nutshell, was that the U.S. Constitution clearly assigns power over tariffs to Congress, and Congress has not clearly delegated it to the president. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed (7-4) that Trump’s tariffs are not enforceable under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the administration cited as a justification (Trump has until October 14 to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court).

In a hyper-partisan atmosphere, the ever-present impulse to side with one political “team” can often lead us astray. So, it’s worth considering a similar example with partisan roles reversed.

In 2023, a coalition of attorneys general from Republican-led states sued the Biden administration over its unilateral imposition of student loan forgiveness. The argument, in a nutshell, was that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress power to spend money and accrue debt, and Congress had never delegated to the executive branch the type of widespread loan forgiveness power it tried to exercise. In that case (and others), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s various attempts at student loan forgiveness as unconstitutional.

Strangely, many who opposed Biden’s student loan bailout applaud Trump’s tariffs, and many who oppose Trump’s tariffs applauded Biden’s student loan bailout.

But the propriety of executive action does not depend on which party occupies the White House. Even if the majority will were the standard for setting policy, that would legitimize both actions equally. But America is not governed by a party, nor by majority will, but by the Constitution and laws made in accordance with it. The Framers of the Constitution recognized the political strength of the majority will, and so they exercised great care in crafting various checks to restrain its excesses.

Ever since President Barack Obama infamously resorted to “a pen and … a phone” to sidestep Congress in 2014, presidents have become increasingly disinterested in following the letter of the law when enacting their agenda. President Biden earned rebukes from the Supreme Court for everything from a rent moratorium to burdensome climate rules. Cases from the second Trump administration have yet to filter up to the Supreme Court, but the administration has already angered courts by flighty deportation practices.

Trump is also contemplating more executive orders on topics over which he has little evident authority, such as voter ID requirements and housing prices. (Curiously, these issues parallel concerns over policy battles during the Biden administration, such as Biden’s push to get congressional Democrats to effectively federalize elections and the aforementioned rent moratorium.)

This is not to suggest the two administrations are equivalent in every instance or in the degree of their disregard for the law. For instance, a Trump executive order, ostensibly prohibiting flag-burning, stopped short of trampling on what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Over the last four years, the Biden administration and its progressive allies (perhaps “overlords” is more apt) openly daydreamed about packing the Supreme Court to ram through their agenda.

Nor does this piece suggest that presidents flouting the law is a recent innovation previously unknown in American history. From Andrew Jackson to FDR, there are plenty of historical examples of presidents who insisted on getting their own way, no matter what the law or the courts said. Even Abraham Lincoln had to suspend laws amid the exigencies of civil war. By his own admission (or at least his own interpretation), Thomas Jefferson violated the Constitution to secure the Louisiana Purchase.

What these facts do suggest is that we now live in the age of the imperial presidency, in which a single man, bolstered by the demagogic powers afforded by a century of advancements in mass communication, commands an army of bureaucrats to do his bidding. Before the might of the executive leviathan, old-fashioned courts and a faction-riven Congress seem puny indeed.

There are structural changes that could ameliorate the imbalance of power. For instance, in the rare moments when Congress disapproves of an agency rule or other executive action that contradicts their expressed intent, the president who ordered that executive action should not have veto power over Congress’s ability to express disapproval.

However, the larger corrective must come from the people themselves. In any elected system of government, the buck always stops with the people. It is from the people that the president derives his moral authority to act as a national leader, independent of the other branches. Therefore, it is the people who act as the final check on the imperial presidency. It is the people who must demand a restrained executive that acts within the bounds of its proper constitutional authority.

What does this authority look like? One that remains tolerable from one administration to the next. Presidents should remember that any new power they claim can be used by their enemies the next time the winds of public opinion shift.

President Trump already knows from personal experience what oppression results when the awesome powers of the federal government are illegitimately weaponized against political opponents. Hopefully, the people who have the ear of this administration will have the prudence to counsel: any new power you claim can be used to the opposite effect by your political enemies.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Take to the Streets as Trump Prepares to Tackle Chicago Crime

EXCLUSIVE: Ride Along With The Law Enforcement Agents Throwing Criminal Illegals Into The Slammer

RELATED VIDEO: WE’RE GOING IN’: Trump Puts Chicago on Notice, Confirms Plans to Send in Guard

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Law & (Executive) Order: Governing in the Modern Age

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

If there’s a shortage of pens in Washington, D.C., blame the White House. A handful of days into Donald Trump’s second term, the twice-elected president has inked more autographs than Alex Ovechkin. After signing almost triple the executive orders (26) of his predecessor on day one, the 78-year-old hasn’t let his foot off the gas for a second. In a flurry that’s left even The New York Times scrambling to keep up, Trump is flooding the zone with actions on everything from immigration to gender — a strategy that isn’t just frustrating Democrats, it’s radically rewriting American policy. The question is: for how long?

The modern presidency has been uniquely defined by executive orders — a strategy that Barack Obama made famous in 2011 with his slogan “We can’t wait.” And while the orders are nothing new (four presidents signed more than 1,000 of them), Obama’s open circumvention of Congress was. “Where I can act on my own without Congress,” he said, “I’m going to do so.” The idea didn’t sit well with members, especially those of the Republican persuasion, who were quick to point out that a president can’t “go it alone.” “We’re going to have to remind him we do have a Constitution, and the Congress writes laws,” then-Speaker John Boehner fired back.

Obama was undeterred. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” he insisted at his first Cabinet meeting of 2014. It would be, he promised, a “year of action.”

That action, it turned out, wasn’t without consequences. For one, the 44th president ran smack dab into the U.S. Supreme Court, who decided — on more than one occasion — to rein in the unchecked power Obama declared for himself. For another, the changes didn’t last. They were, as Joe Biden’s have been, erased as soon as Trump took office, which has become the predictable routine for every partisan flip of the executive office.

Of course, it’s easy to understand why executive orders are so enticing. They put instant wins on the board. It’s immediate policy gratification — unlike Congress, whose ability to get anything of substance done has been crippled by partisan and even intra-party fights. Even when Republicans or Democrats do control both chambers, it doesn’t necessarily translate into rapid-fire legislative successes.

Take this week, for instance. While Trump is radically overhauling the executive branch and the federal workforce, the GOP is in Florida bickering over how to implement the president’s agenda — if they even showed up at all. Some refused to even attend, a not-so-promising sign of the tempers boiling over in the powder keg known as the House majority. “Sadly enough, we have people sitting at home complaining about the meeting on Twitter, and they’re the ones who’d rather complain, attack, argue, than be part of the solution,” a frustrated Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) told Fox News. “We know who they are. We just have to deal with it.”

Is it any wonder that chief executives are tempted to leave the chaos of Congress behind? As George Washington University’s Casey Burgat and Georgetown University’s Matt Glassman wrote in National Affairs (and The Washington Post harkened back to last week), the presidency “‘changes more abruptly than other governing institutions.’ A ‘strong disruptive incentive’ grows stronger as presidents, impatiently disdaining Congress as an impediment to the flowering of their reputations, increasingly resort to achieving changes unilaterally, by executive orders.”

It’s not as if the Founders didn’t make allowances for it. In Federalist Paper 72, Alexander Hamilton writes that a president is well within his authority “To reverse and undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor as the best proof he can give of his own capacity and desert.”

The trouble is, executive orders were never meant to be a form of replacement governing. A nation controlled by EOs is an unstable place, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed out on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” “We’re elated [and] excited about most of the policies [Trump has put in place by executive order].” A majority of those actions, he explained, “are within the framework of the law and mov[e] us back to the rule of law and [get] our government back to where it should be. But we saw four years ago how quickly that turned with the Biden administration coming in. And so, I’m concerned long term about our country where we see this back and forth, this ideological shift every four years. That’s unsustainable.”

Congressman Keith Self (R-Texas) agreed. “This is Congress’s role, because we need to codify into law a lot of these policies. … As you say, the next president could undo a lot of what Trump is doing now. The only way around that is to codify it into law, so that we don’t have competing EOs every four years.”

Perkins asked if that had been discussed in the Republican caucus. “Have you and your colleagues been [talking about] how we can take these orders and basically preserve them going forward by making them statutory?” Self replied that the House has been meeting about that, especially with the chairmen of various committees. “I think we’ll probably get a long way toward that once we get past the reconciliation [bills].”

“I hope so,” the FRC president said, because we “can’t sustain” the extreme back and forth. It’s not good for our country, and it doesn’t strengthen us on the international scene either.” We need to be “anchored in truth,” he added, “and lay a solid foundation for this country.”

That said, Trump’s breakneck pace on executive orders is having a significant impact in at least two ways: serving as momentum for key legislation and reinforcing existing laws.

Shortly after the president released his guidance protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation Tuesday, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reintroduced his Protecting Our Kids from Child Abuse Act that would bar funding from any facility that carries out these transitions and also allow victims of these procedures to sue. “Our children should no longer suffer from irreversible and dangerous child mutilation procedures, which the Biden administration enabled and promoted,” the senator said in a statement before citing the White House’s own move. “I welcome President Trump’s strong action to reverse this child abuse and look forward to working with his administration to advance legislation that protects our kids.”

On the flip side, the laws that Biden unlawfully ignored are getting some much-deserved attention. Over at Health and Human Services (HHS), the acting secretary is demanding a full evaluation of the agency’s policies and programs to make sure they’re all in line with the pro-life Hyde Amendment after the president’s order calling on agencies to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office for Civil Rights, is tasked with enforcement of many of our nation’s laws that protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious exercise,” Dorothy Fink said in the announcement. “It shall be a priority of the Department to strengthen enforcement of these laws.” In a fact sheet circulated by the White House over the weekend, the president’s team reminds staff, “Congress has enacted the Hyde Amendment and a series of additional laws to protect taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortion. Contrary to this longstanding commonsense policy, the previous administration embedded federal funding of elective abortion in a wide variety of government programs.” That ends now, Fink declared.

So yes, executive orders are important, but they’ll never take the place of duly-enacted laws. As experience has taught both sides, congressional victories are much harder to overturn (and much harder to accomplish, unfortunately). It’s past time for the House and Senate to get back to the hard work of legislating — even in this tense, wafer-thin majority — and match the urgency of Trump.

As FRC’s Quena Gonzalez told The Washington Stand, “President Trump came into office with a mandate that he’s determined to fulfill. He’s issued dozens of executive orders, reversing Joe Biden’s priorities and returning common sense on life, biology, immigration, and gender experimentation on kids,” but, he warned, “those wins could be reversed on day one of the next Democratic presidency.”

“America is tired of whiplash every time a different party takes the White House. Congress needs to act. From defunding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood (which receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds each year) to protecting kids from a lifetime of medical experimentation if they express temporary discomfort with their sex, to defending people who believe in one-man, one-woman marriage and preventing targeted prosecutions of peaceful pro-life protestors, Americans are not tired of winning,” Gonzalez insisted. “We’re tired of every election being a life-and-death struggle between common sense and lunacy, between liberty and tyranny.”

For now, he emphasized, “President Trump’s re-election has given America a reprieve. Whether that reprieve is temporary or has more permanent and lasting implications for the future of our country rests, in large part, with Congress. It is time for our elected representatives to step up.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Administration Drills Deep to Dump DEI

Trump Puts USAID Workers on Leave for Skirting Executive Order

Trump’s First Week Just the Beginning of the ‘Clean-up Process’ of ‘Anti-Family Provisions’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden’s Latest Amnesty Plan Will ‘Normalize Lawlessness’: Senator

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Democratic Party took another step toward the goal of creating a permanent governing majority in the United States on Tuesday, as President Joe Biden announced a mass amnesty for more than half-a-million illegal immigrants — a move one U.S. senator said aims “to make certain that Democrats are in charge for the rest of our lifetimes.”

Biden’s executive action would grant any illegal immigrant married to a U.S. citizen and resident in the U.S. for at least 10 years the privilege of “Parole in Place” (PIP) — remaining in the United States rather than facing deportation, as required by federal law. It then puts them on a path to citizenship. They can also receive a green card during the three years in which they may apply for lawful permanent resident status, allowing them to take jobs in the U.S. economy legally. Current law already allows the spouses of American citizens to apply for citizenship, but they must return to their home country while completing the process. Tuesday’s action applies to an estimated 500,000 adults, as well as 50,000 stepchildren under the age of 21 living with American citizens.

It is not clear how many illegal immigrants who identify as homosexual and contracted a legal same-sex marriage with a U.S. citizen would benefit from the program.

The latest action proves that Biden “will defy the Supreme Court. He will defy Congress. He will defy the rule of law,” said Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Monday. “He’s going to do it and wait for somebody to challenge him. … You cannot execute an immigration law change without coming to Congress.”

Experts say Biden has no constitutional authority to unilaterally confer citizenship, and the move also violates statutory law. Under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “Parole in Place” has only been recognized for the immediate relatives of enlisted soldiers or veterans.

“Rather than stopping the worst border crisis in history, President Biden has overreached his executive authority to use an unconstitutional process, circumventing voters and their elected representatives in Congress, to send a message that amnesty is available to those who enter illegally into the United States,” said James Massa, CEO of the immigration watchdog group NumbersUSA, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “The action is unconstitutional. The timing is unconscionable.”

Biden’s executive amnesty announcement came 12 years to the day that President Barack Obama instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. After Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have provided amnesty for those who came to the United States illegally as children, Obama took executive actions that treated the bill as if it were law.

Republicans have accused the Obama and Biden administrations of favoring illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens, from the subways of New York City to the railroads of East Palestine, Ohio.

“The story of Dreamers is a story of America,” asserted Vice President Kamala Harris this week. “Lawmakers must pass legislation that creates a path to citizenship.” For his part, Biden declared, “I am committed to providing Dreamers the support they need to succeed,” boasting that last month his administration “took the historic step of expanding access to affordable, quality health coverage to DACA recipients through the Affordable Care Act.”

“Joe Biden wants to be the president of illegal aliens, but I will be the president for law-abiding Americans — every race, religion, color and creed,” said President Donald Trump, who has promised to invalidate the agreement and initiate mass deportations. “When I am elected, Joe Biden’s illegal amnesty will be ripped up and thrown out on the very first day we are back in office,” he told a raucous crowd in Racine, Wisconsin, Tuesday evening.

The White House “fact sheet” on the law-evading action claims, “President Biden believes that securing the border is essential.” Yet his administration ushered in an era of unprecedented illegal immigration, with millions of unlawful crossings taking place each year.

Analysts say his plan incentivizes additional illegal immigration and opens the U.S. to massive fraud. “Any system in which illegal entrants are rewarded to the detriment of foreign nationals doing it ‘the right way’ is a bad one, and that is what the administration is setting up,” wrote Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The scheme’s 10-year residency requirement “is an invitation to fraud as spouses of U.S. citizens who have been here for briefer periods will start scrambling to collect (and create) documents to show longer terms of presence — and to cover up subsequent departures.”

Many of the provisions seem unworkable, say its opponents. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) asked who is going to verify whether the stepchildren covered by the action lived in the United States during the period of eligibility on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.”

Biden, who trails Trump in the polling, is “trying to put up barriers so it’ll make it harder” to carry out mass deportations and return the rule of law, said Norman. “But that’s what’s got to happen.” Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans now favor deporting every illegal immigrant in America, according to a CBS/YouGov poll taken earlier this month.

Biden and the Democratic Party have “tried to normalize lawlessness,” said Blackburn. “And what happens when you try to normalize this lawlessness? You end up with chaos.”

“All of this is part of their goal to begin to legalize illegal immigrants before we get to November, because they want their votes, and they want them to count in the census,” Blackburn told Perkins. Including non-citizens in the U.S. Census redistributes eight congressional seats, mostly from Republican-leaning states to Democratic ones, according to CIS. “This is how they’re planning to backfill the population that they’ve been losing from big blue states and big blue cities.”

“They’re doing anything they can to collect power and to centralize power within the federal government, with them in charge. They’re trying to make certain that Democrats are in charge for the rest of our lifetimes,” said Blackburn.

As if to prove Blackburn’s assessment, Democrats in swing states greeted Biden’s executive amnesty in starkly partisan terms. “The road to the White House runs through Nevada, and people in my state are paying attention,” said Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.).

Although critics often conflate any discussion of changing demographics with a purportedly racist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, far-left progressives long latched onto mass amnesty as their path to permanent political power. A Service Employees International Union leader and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America Eliseo Medina spelled out the plan during a left-wing conference:

“If we reform the immigration laws — it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if you had even the same ratio, two out of three [Hispanics voting for Democrats], if we get 8 million new voters that care about our issue and will be voting, we will create a governing coalition for the long-term, not just for an election cycle?”

Medina merely repeated an electoral theory going back at least to the 2002 book “The Emerging Democratic Majority” by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. Salon magazine cited the “Latino realignment” in a 2008 article titled “A Permanent Democratic Majority?”

“Through this sweeping executive action, which has no grounding in federal law, the president is illegally claiming the power to bypass Congress’ plenary authority over immigration policy in pursuit of a political goal as the president faces reelection,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Norman said the issue goes far beyond Biden to the core of his administration. “The ones who rule him are pretty well set to control this country through illegals voting,” he told Perkins.

The Democratic administration’s simmering indifference to border security has led to numerous tragedies, including a string of violent and sadistic crimes against American citizens. New York City police Tuesday arrested Christian Geovanny Inga-Landi, a 25-year-old illegal immigrant from Ecuador, for allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl. That came just days after Oklahoma police apprehended 23-year-old illegal immigrant Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez for raping and murdering Rachel Morin, a mother of five. Police said the accused perpetrator fled his native El Salvador after committing another homicide.

Such incidents dot every corner of the United States. “South Carolina’s already been affected,” said Norman. “Every state in the country has.”

“But Biden doesn’t care about the American lives that will forever be destroyed by the illegal criminals he is importing; and Biden doesn’t care that law-abiding taxpayers, crushed by inflation, are forced to pay for free food, housing, and healthcare for illegals,” said the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt.

America’s porous border increasingly threatens national security. Officials recently nabbed eight illegal immigrants from Tajikistan who had ties to ISIS. Officers had originally caught them at the border, but then released them in accordance with Biden administration norms before the FBI eventually tracked them down.

The possibility of a serious terrorist attack on U.S. soil is “no longer speculative,” Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) told “Face the Nation” Sunday, “no longer hypothetical.”

Conservatives say if the open border policies continue, Americans risk losing their liberties, as well as their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

“If we lose this election, then our freedom, our sovereignty, our democracy will go down the tubes,” said Norman. “Another four years of this administration, and we will have lost every freedom we’ve had.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Illegal Immigrant Rapes 13-Year-Old Girl at Knifepoint: This is Joe Biden’s America

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Legal Experts Sound Alarm on Biden Admin’s Pattern of ‘Unlawful Overreach’

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

In the wake of the Biden administration’s recent efforts to use federal agencies to regulate on matters outside their jurisdiction, legal experts are expressing dismay at what they say is a pattern of unconstitutional overreach by Biden’s government in order to achieve political ends.

Last year, the Biden administration moved forward with a new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule that threatened to pull federal funding for school lunches from schools that did not adopt the administration’s new interpretation of Title IX, which specified that the prohibition on discrimination based on sex must “include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” Observers noted that a program designed to help feed low-income children was now being entangled with a policy rooted in highly controversial gender ideology.

In December, a group of 21 Republican state attorneys general filed suit against the Biden administration after it finalized another federal rule through the Department of Transportation (USDOT) which required states to create benchmarks for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) called the rule “another unlawful and overreaching regulation,” and the attorneys general pointed out that Congress had not given the USDOT authority to regulate emissions or to direct how states must roll out their policy decisions.

On Thursday, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) pointed to numerous further examples of the Biden administration’s overreach on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.”

“One of the things people ought to pay attention to is the phrase ‘whole of government,’” he noted. “You’re starting to hear this from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington over and over again. That should be a red flag for you when you hear ‘whole of government.’ … It’s kind of a code that they’re going to use [in order for] agencies that have absolutely nothing to do with the thing at hand to try to accomplish something that they don’t have authority to do.”

“For example,” Yost continued, “the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] is there to regulate the stock markets and stock trading and commodities trading. They publish rules, and it’s a regulatory agency — pretty dry and dusty. Well, under the whole of government approach, the Biden administration is using them to try to enter into fossil fuels and energy policy and climate change. What does the SEC and stock markets have to do with whether we drive electric cars or not or fossil fuel development?”

Yost further pointed to a November 2021 rule the Biden administration attempted to implement through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “They tried to get OSHA involved in the COVID wars. OSHA is all about [having] guardrails around the catwalks. Let’s make sure that there’s safety features around the vats of acid so that workers don’t get hurt. They tried to use that department and that authority to make sure that every employee of a company that had more than 100 employees, which was over 80 million Americans, had to have the vaccine … if they wanted the government’s permission to work. The Supreme Court knocked it down … but it’s that whole of government mindset where they try to take every bureaucratic alphabet soup agency to do something that [it] was never designed to do.”

Yost went on to underscore the importance of the American court system in maintaining the rule of law going forward. “We have to rely on the genius of the Founders, the separation of powers. The courts and Congress both have the ability to rein in an overreaching executive. Congress hasn’t been too interested in doing that of late. But fortunately, in a lot of places, courts are doing their jobs as attorneys general are going to court and challenging these things.”

“We have to realize we’re in a battle,” Yost concluded. “This is not a civil debate. … These folks don’t care about the norms. They don’t care about the rules or the rule of law. We are in a pitched battle, and we need everybody to help.”

Perkins concurred. “We’ve got to be informed. We’ve got to be voting. We’ve got to be engaged, making sure that we have those that respect the rule of law [in office] because our system doesn’t work without that.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ Primary Shenanigans Are a Bad Look for Biden

RELATED VIDEO: Joe Biden – America’s Agent of Chaos.

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.