Or, say for example, the SCOTUS ruled that federal regulations as a whole are an unconstitutional delegation of congressional responsibility to unelected bureaucrats
I find this unimaginable. I aware of no argument that “federal regulations as a whole” are unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court would never risk throwing the economy into disarray with huge, sudden, radical changes.
Also, such a decision would increase centralization of the remaining powers apportioned to Congress. Therefore it could magnify the existing influence of money in politics by increasing the incentive to influence politicians.
Finally, this scenario probably involves striking down a lot of regulations that I agree with, so I can’t support it.
Congress would have to actually draft and debate and pass the exact law, rather than leaving regulations up to the executive.
I’m pretty sure most of the tax code is written by congress.
Their liberal (pun intended) use of judicial injunctions here and their specious arguments are dishonoring the tradition of an independent judiciary
What arguments are specious?
Back to the issue at hand, I wonder — would you be in support of tying campaign finance changes you propose to legislation that would explicitly limit the government’s power?
That depends on who I believe would benefit.
Fundamentally I’m a consequentialist. Conservatives treat small government, free markets and low taxes as goals, but I would never do that. I think that’s confusing the means with the end.
My goal is a prosperous, happy, free and stable society, that limits harm to the poor and vulnerable (I hate that attitude of “you’re poor, therefore you’re undeserving” — I think the just world hypothesis is completely false and a counterproductive instance of wishful thinking.)
So to satisfy me, it’s fine to propose trimming government powers all you want, it’s fine to make markets more free and even to lower taxes, if you can convince me that it’s in service of my goals.
