Link https://substack.com/inbox/post/169960639?utm_source=post-emailtitle&publication_id=4024197&post_id=169960639&utm_campaign=email-posttitle&isFreemail=true&r=2scdx&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Please see the link above for the source text.
Michael Hancock's Undercurrent
Aug 02, 2025
One of the most brilliant features of the U.S. Constitution is its recognition of human nature—not just in its vices, but in its limitations. The framers didn’t just aim to prevent tyranny; they aimed to build a system that could govern well even though no institution—or person—is omniscient or omnipotent. It’s a humility baked into the structure.
That’s why Congress makes the laws, and the President executes them—two separate powers working together.
But what the Constitution also quietly acknowledges is that not every problem can be solved by committee. In a world where markets shift overnight, threats emerge in real time, and global actors often cheat the system for strategic advantage, the slow churn of legislative debate can’t always meet the moment.
And so, wisely and necessarily, Congress has sometimes delegated specific powers to the executive branch—to act swiftly, respond to threats, and carry out the people's will as expressed through legislation and national elections.
Tariffs are a clear example of this.
In theory, tariffs are an affront to classical economic ideals. They interfere with free markets and violate the principles of comparative advantage. But theory rarely survives first contact with reality. And the reality is that the global economy is far from free. While the United States has long played by the rules—lowering barriers, opening markets, and trusting in fair exchange —many of our trading partners have not. They subsidize key industries. They manipulate currencies and exploit loopholes. And they do so with an eye not just toward economic growth, but geopolitical leverage.
In such a world, holding fast to a purely academic notion of free trade becomes a liability, not a virtue. And if a nation has to wait years for its legislature to build consensus while its industrial base erodes and its trade deficits balloon, it risks becoming a principled fool—right in theory, but weak in practice.
That’s where executive authority, properly understood, plays a vital role.
Through laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, Congress authorized the President to act on matters of trade that intersect with national security and economic retaliation. These weren’t blank checks—they were targeted tools, granted because Congress recognized its own procedural limits. It was an acknowledgment that the world doesn’t always wait for the next congressional session. And it reflected a deeper truth: that sometimes, the people speak most clearly not through a 435-member chamber, but through the election of an executive charged with leading in real time.
This is not a threat to the constitutional order. It’s a feature of it.
But like all features, it must be used carefully.
Delegated authority is not permanent power. It’s power on loan—granted by Congress for specific purposes, and revocable when abused or stretched beyond its intent. The danger is not in the act of delegation itself. The danger comes when Congress stops paying attention. When oversight becomes an afterthought. When presidential actions, meant to be provisional, become normalized and unchallenged. That’s when constitutional structure starts to quietly erode—not in a dramatic collapse, but in a slow fade into irrelevance.
So yes, let’s respect the reality that not all problems can be solved through slow deliberation. Let’s affirm the brilliance of a system that allows for executive responsiveness in a world that often demands it. But let’s also recognize the cost of complacency. Delegation must be matched by accountability. The President must act within the law. And Congress must remember that delegating power doesn’t mean abandoning responsibility.
Studying Tariff policy has much to offer. It’s one thing to grant the executive authority to respond to unfair trade practices or national security threats—it’s another to allow sweeping tariff regimes to take root with minimal debate and virtually no legislative course correction. Just because the President can impose tariffs under existing authority doesn’t mean Congress shouldn’t weigh in when those actions stretch the economic or diplomatic fabric of the nation.
Trade policy, like national defense, demands a balance of speed and strategy. The executive offers the former. The legislature ensures the latter. Neither can afford to abdicate their role.
Our Constitution is not a cage—it’s a guide that created space for adaptation without sacrificing structure. It allows Congress to recognize its limitations without surrendering its duty. It empowers the executive to lead without becoming a law unto himself.
This is the brilliance of our system: governance grounded in principle, but flexible enough for reality.
And like all brilliant designs, it works only if we use it as intended.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking that every executive action is either a threat to democracy or a heroic fix. It’s a tool—useful in the right moment, but only ever as legitimate as the law behind it. Congress was never meant to run every detail of government, but it was expected to protect the structure of liberty. And that job doesn’t go away just because it’s hard or politically inconvenient.
In moments of urgency, delegation is not dereliction—it’s wisdom. But in moments of complacency, it becomes something far more dangerous.
Let’s make sure we know the difference.