George Will: Buckley urges Congress to stay out of state affairs |
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: Buckley urges Congress to stay out of state affairs

George Will


At 96, James Buckley still is, like good cheddar, sharp and savory. Buckley, whose life has been no less accomplished than his brother Bill’s, recently said at a National Review gathering that his speech there would be his last public appearance. Let us hope not.

He adorned all the government’s branches — senator; undersecretary of state for international security affairs; judge on the nation’s second-most important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Shortly after his 1970 election to the Senate, (as a member of New York’s Conservative Party; the age of miracles had not yet passed) he was handed a recent study showing that “the work of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1936.”

He explains: “Given the fact that, in simpler times, Congress worked at a leisurely pace and was in session for only five or six months a year, its members could take the initial increases in stride simply by devoting more hours per day and more months per year to their work. Over time, however, the available hours and months had been exhausted, and the doubling could only be accommodated by squeezing deliberation out of the legislative process.”

In 1934, after 145 years of congressional activity, the U.S. Code consisted of one volume of federal statutes. Buckley says when he came to Congress 36 years later, there were 11 volumes. Today, 49 more years on, there are 41 volumes — supplemented by 242 volumes of regulations having the force of law. This, says Buckley, is the result of a Congress “that largely substitutes political reflex for reflection,” and that is so averse to “messy details” that it delegates “essentially legislative authority to executive agencies.” All this stems, however, from “abandonment of the Constitution’s limits on federal authority.”

Buckley says that the mischief erupted after a 1937 Supreme Court ruling that Congress, in promoting the “general welfare,” can supply states with money to implement programs that Congress has no enumerated power to write into law. When Buckley entered the Senate, such programs distributed $24 billion. Today, he says, the sum, properly computed, is in “mid-$700 billions.” The idea of enumerated powers having been erased, so has the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”).

Buckley has hitherto proposed converting all such programs into block grants to states. He now proposes a presidential tweet vowing to veto “any bill that tells the states how to run their own affairs.” He proposes, and believes “there is a chance,” that the Supreme Court might reverse its 1937 ruling on the ground that federal grants to states “have proven to be inherently coercive.” These proposals are equally sensible, and — the age of miracles has now passed — equally unlikely.

The problem, as Yuval Levin says, is Congress’ “willful underactivity.” But the growing problem that will continue to exacerbate this problem is this: Having marginalized itself, with judicial encouragement, Congress now attracts members who either disdain it or think members of the president’s party exist to tug their forelock when the president issues orders.

An omnipresent, micromanaging federal government will necessarily be presidential government, with the chief executive’s discretion unbound, and unsupervised by a Congress that manages to be both harried and lethargic. Many progressives have long understood this — and have approved of it because they thought Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts would be the sort of presidents who would benefit from it. But because of the 45th president, progressives are having second thoughts. They should consider Buckley’s thoughts.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.