This is an article submission from a reader like you. We consider all submissions.
On December 4th, the Trump Administration announced a rule change to the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The new rule will restrict states’ ability to waive some of the work requirements. The highlight of every news article on the rule change was the projection that it would kick almost 700,000 people off of the SNAP. Liberals decried the change. Conservatives cheered. To anyone who likes limited government, this seems like an excellent move. That view is wrong and reflects a sad trend in American politics.
As a conservative who believes the SNAP is fundamentally unconstitutional, I am thrilled to see it restricted. Welfare, if it is to exist, should be limited to those who genuinely have no other avenue.
However, the Trump Administration is unilaterally creating new legislation with this rule change. The Farm Bill was explicit in how Congress expected SNAP to work. Congress specifically debated this rule change when the last Farm Bill was up for debate. Congress chose not to include that change in its final bill. Trump has no authority to change it via executive fiat.
The Farm Bill authorizes states to institute waivers for certain reasons. Trump and Sonny Perdue cannot change that by themselves. When conservatives approve of actions such as these, they are ignoring their own supposed constitutional principles to do so.
This is just the latest in a long trend of disturbing happenings eroding the separation of powers in Washington. In the last 70 years, the American public, with our politicians leading the way, has seemingly given up on the constitutional processes by which governmental actions are authorized. This is not restricted to the left side of the aisle. Republicans are just as guilty of letting the executive branch do what it likes.
When Nixon took the nation off the gold standard in 1971, Congress was silent, despite the fact that the US was on the gold standard because Congress had passed legislation authorizing the Bretton Woods system of international finance that created the gold standard.
When Reagan and Bush 41 passed sweeping executive amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, Republicans in Congress stayed quiet, only for the reverse to be true when Obama created DACA on the heels of congressional inaction.
There was some talk at the congressional level in 2017 when Trump unilaterally authorized strikes on Syria. However, the only result was the lack of one and the emboldening of Trump to do the same thing a year later.
Ever since FDR set the precedent that the president is authorized to do whatever he wants, future presidents have followed suit, with each successive Congress acquiescing more and more.
This lack of process is not limited to the executive branch. In the last 80 years, Congress has continued to pass law after law creating programs not authorized by any clause of the Constitution. If they do give a constitutional explanation, they often cite the Necessary and Proper Clause, even though the clause should only apply to powers delegated to Congress by Article One. Oftentimes, however, the Constitution is never mentioned. Politicians on both sides of the aisle put up their blinders and ignore the nation’s principle piece of law.
What I have laid out above was not always the case. Before the Civil War, Congress tended to stay within their constitutional bounds, and presidents would not act without congressional authorization. James K. Polk did not go to war with Mexico until Congress declared war, and proposed peace when Congress threatened to pull funding.
Something changed with the conclusion of the Civil War. With the death of federalism, the idea that Congress and the President needed to stay within their constitutional bounds died as well.
Congress began to authorize expansive systems of infrastructure, funded by surplus’ the country had not seen since the days of Andrew Jackson. As the century closed, a wave of progressivism crashed over the country and, between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both parties faltered in their commitments to our founding document.
What really drove the nail in the coffin, though, was the Great Depression and the resulting rise of FDR and his branch of liberalism. Eisenhower was no better, and by the ‘60s, both party machines had thoroughly buried constitutional conservatism. Though Reagan revived conservative policy in the ‘80s as well as Gingrich in the ‘90s, constitutional process remains the hallmark of a few lone mavericks in DC.
The message of this article can be boiled down to one central idea: it is not enough to care about policy, you must also care about process . Even if Congress or the President does something you agree with, if it is done unconstitutionally or in the wrong manner, then it should not be supported. Our Founders believed in the federalist nature of our Constitution. We should believe in it too.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment below.
Scott Howard is a constitutionally-minded conservative freelance writer with a focus on fiscal matters and foreign policy. He has been an active contributor to The Liberty Hawk. You can follow him on Twitter: Follow @thenextTedCruz
Editor’s note: Amen! -Justin