Have you been hearing about the ‘administrative state?’ It’s been in the news, lately.
Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump administration, apparently, wants the administrative state to be deconstructed. Or gotten rid of? Is that it?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has questioned the constitutional basis of the administrative state, with regard to the admin. state’s growth.
What they’re apparently referring to is administrative agencies in government, perhaps like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, which, during the Reagan administration, was chaired by Mr. Thomas.
Just recently, Supreme Court Justice Thomas played a key role in deconstructing women’s health and abortion rights, with the court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade.
It’s hard to know what factored into Mr. Bannon’s determination to take on the administrative state. He was, at one time, an investment banker, so, who knows, maybe bureaucracy in business got to him, and he decided to channel his angst toward government bureaucracy?
But folks aiming to deconstruct things maybe should have something in mind to replace them? Because administrative agencies with names like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Education Department, Health & Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the National Transportation Safety Board, and such, may very well be bringing some real value to people. So, hopefully, folks like Mr. Bannon, and Justice Thomas are thinking beyond simply deconstructing the whole kit and caboodle.
Have you been hearing about ‘natural rights?’ That seems to be another hot topic.
‘Natural Rights,’ in the Encyclopedia, suggest “that every human enjoys a complete and exclusive dominion over his or her mental and bodily facilities…just as God,” according to various “thinkers, enjoyed ultimate ownership of the earth and the rest of his creations by virtue of his will, so human beings, in whom God’s image resided, could claim dominion over themselves…”
In these days and this age, folks claiming dominion over themselves seems to be fomenting a whole lot of controversy. Considering, for instance, the women’s health and abortion rights imbroglio.
Natural rights can be debated from now, until who knows when? Folks have been ruminating on it for many centuries.
Considering all the news about threats to freedom and democracy, with some folks’ here, in America, and elsewhere around the world, apparently becoming increasingly fascinated with autocracy and authoritarian leaders, maybe being able to claim dominion over oneself can be seen, perhaps, in a brighter light? With women’s health in mind, as well as marriage equality rights, for example.
No doubt about it! In the evolutionary development of human beings, these sorts of things are complex, as all get out.
The 16th century philosopher, John Locke, insisted that “no natural basis — neither paternity nor descent — justifies the submission of one person to another…”
Like poets and philosophers might say, there’s much to be interpreted, and maybe someday, fully appreciated and fully understood.