Constitution 101 2019 Course Notes Part 6

According to contemporary defenders of the administrative state, the system of government established by the Constitution is dysfunctional.

The modern administrative state is anti-constitutional because it circumvents the separation of powers, attempts to regulate almost all aspects of people's lives, and is uninterested in performing the basic functions of a legitimate government.

According to progressive theorists like Hebert Croly, the goal of the modern administrative state is to secure social justice.

Not only is the modern administrative state anti-constitutional, but it is also pre-constitutional.

The suspension of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate by the Obama administration is an example of royal prerogative power.

Rather than an aristocracy of experts, the modern administrative state produced an insular oligarchy who rule for their own interests and not for the interests of the governed.

The elite few ruling over the modern administrative state maintain their power by distributing benefits to various groups who support their rule.

Following 1965, the dominant view of government holds that protecting the least advantaged is the primary purpose of government.

One of the New Left’s goals was to bring about a transformation of the moral life of the country through an attack on the traditional understanding of the family.

At the heart of post-1965 politics is a conception of equality that emphasizes not only political equality, but also equality of self-esteem.

Post-1965 immigration policy privileges immigrants from non-European countries.

John Rawls’ difference principle asserts that inequality of wealth and privilege is justified if it is used to favor the disadvantaged.

Source: “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution”