Frequently Asked Questions about the
Regulation Freedom Amendment
1. What is the Regulation Freedom Amendment?
The Regulation Freedom Amendment is a proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress.
2. Who supports the Regulation Freedom Amendment?
The Regulation Freedom Amendment has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of more than 900 state legislators, six governors, UNANIMOUS votes of the American Farm Bureau, the Republican National Committee, and the National Federation of Republican Women as well as by a wide variety of business and political groups across America.
3. Why do we need the Regulation Freedom Amendment?
Federal regulators are out of control. Unless we act, regulators will be able to dictate the rules that govern us without the consent of Congress.
4. Is this about holding an Article V Convention?
NO. This is NOT about holding a Convention.
The Regulation Freedom Amendment strategy is to mobilize states to persuade CONGRESS to propose the Amendment in the same way states helped persuade Congress to propose the Bill of Rights.
Both strong opponents and strong supporters of an Article V Convention have united to support this effort.
5. Why do we need an Amendment to the Constitution to curb federal regulators?
Every voting Republican in the House and some courageous Democrats voted for the REINS Act to require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress, but a law could be challenged in Court or repealed by the next time pro-big government forces control Congress and the White House.
A constitutional Amendment permanently curbs federal regulators.
6. Since so many politicians ignore the Constitution, why will a new Amendment make any difference?
This Amendment restores checks and balances on regulatory abuse that have been eroded by the Courts By clearly giving Congress a veto on federal regulations, we make it much harder for Courts to empower regulators as they have done in the past.
7. Doesn’t Congress already have the power to check federal regulators?
The Congressional Review Act passed in the 1990s allows two-thirds of the House and Senate to pass a resolution disapproving a federal regulation over a President’s veto. But because a President can almost always count on one-third plus one of the House or Senate to sustain his or her veto, it leaves a President’s regulators with the power to dictate regulations the American people without the consent of Congress.
The Review Act has only been successfully used once and does not ensure that federal regulations, like laws must have the support of a majority of elected officials in Congress.
8. Could the Regulation Freedom Amendment lead to the paralysis of the administrative state because Congress might block too many new federal regulations?
The 200 plus year history of the federal appropriations process demonstrates that the President and Congress always come to an agreement on measures that both agree are necessary for the proper functioning of government. The Regulation Freedom Amendment will simply force the Executive Branch to consult in advance with Congress on regulatory proposals.
With around 90,000 federal regulations already in place, any risk from having too few new regulations is far less than the almost certain threat of more regulatory overreach if new checks and balances are not imposed.
9. What are the political advantages of fighting for a Regulation Freedom Amendment in 2016?
Permanently ending “regulation without representation” could be a key issue in 2016.
As more and more elected officials and political leaders endorse the Amendment more and more voters will be asking
candidates if they think federal regulators ought to be more accountable to elected officials or keep their power to dictate from Washington.
Even many grassroots Democrats fear that some Democrats in Washington want to turn the Democratic into an “undemocratic party” that empowers bureaucrats to dictate to the American people.
10. What impact would the Regulation Freedom Amendment effort have, even before an Amendment is proposed and ratified?
Even the credible threat of states forcing Congress to propose an Amendment could deter regulatory overreach and help persuade Congress to enact other more modest regulatory reforms.