
The Progressive Presidency Envelops American Politics
One does not need to revisit the drastic consequences that ensued from COVID-19 policies to be reminded of the failures and mistakes of the progressive constitutional framework that issued them.
For better and for worse, the progressive conception of executive power has become almost definitive for the presidency in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. We judge presidents by their grand actions, their command of politics, and how they shape opinion with rhetoric and gestures. They tell us they feel our pain as we boldly move forward together to claim the unruly future. President Trump has even suggested that our children’s Christmas presents are part of his prerogative. For all this, the American people welcome strident presidents, only turning on them under certain conditions, which are themselves notable. The rulemaking authority that has accumulated in the executive branch in generous transfers of power by Congress since Woodrow Wilson’s groundbreaking progressive presidency now makes it more formidable than it has ever been.
All of this is happening, with only the vaguest of directions from Congress, the branch of government that the Constitution easily accords the widest berth of powers. We seem destined to live out the folly that Publius warned about when he defined tyranny in The Federalist as the combination of legislative, executive, and judicial power in one set of hands.
Progressive constitutionalism finds its objectives in egalitarian social and economic change, aggressive regulation of business, a vast bureaucratic sector, and, most importantly, an executive who leads the people to accept the changes foisted on them in the name of progress. This unbalanced form of government breaks down under the weight of menacing events, emergencies, or forecasts that lead Americans of any belief to look to the federal government for direction and competence.
Continue reading at Public Discourse: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute
Constitutionalism

Epstein & Yoo: Amicus Brief in Supreme Court of Maryland
Civitas Senior Research Fellows Richard Epstein and John Yoo, alongside the Mountain States Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Maryland.
.webp)
Religious Exemptions?: What the Free Exercise Clause Means
A conversation among three religious liberty scholars on the Free Exercise Clause’s original meaning.

Democracy in Britain: The Lords’ Work
Part 2: How the “hereditary peers” enhance lawmaking and support the soft power of the UK.

The “Baneful Practice of Secessions” Returns to Texas
Secession is an extraordinary tactic that should not be deployed for light and transient causes.

Why Issues of Birthright Citizenship Are So Difficult
What makes this issue so difficult is that all these positions have evidence to support them.