The Article I Project: Restore the Powers of Congress

February 04, 2016

Writer

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have launched a new project to restore the powers of Congress that have slowly been legislated away over the past 80 years. They called in to The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to explain what it's all about.

"We formed the Article 1 Project for the purpose of reinvigorating Congress' power," Sen. Lee said. "Congress over the last 80 years has gradually delegated away almost all of its legislative power, to the point now where upwards of 95 percent of our laws are now made by executive branch bureaucrats. And as hard-working and well-intentioned and well-educated and highly specialized as these people might be, they don't work for us. We can't fire them. They're not elected. They're not even accountable to anyone who is elected. So we're trying to turn that around. We're trying to put the power back into the hands of people, specifically back in the hands of the people's elected representatives."

Glenn asked Sen. Lee to provide an example of how this would impact the average person's life.

"Don't talk to me about the debt, most people -- $19 trillion --- they know that," Glenn said. "But it doesn't affect their life day to day. How will this affect people's lives today?"

"If we succeed, everything Americans buy has a chance of becoming more affordable," Sen. Lee said. "The federal regulations that we have to comply with every year cost the American economy $2 trillion a year. And far from being absorbed by wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals, these are the kinds of costs that end up getting passed downstream. It's kind of a backdoor invisible, very regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor and middle class of America, such that everything we buy, every good, every service that we purchase in the economy, is more expensive because of these regulations."

Just launched today, the project is backed by 10 principled conservatives on the Senate and House side --- and hopefully more soon.

Learn more about the Article I Project on Facebook.

Listen to this segment below:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. People I work -- that work on this show are so needy, all the time.

PAT: Are needy?

JEFFY: Needy?

GLENN: Needy.

PAT: I'm not needy at all in any way.

GLENN: You're like, I want Ted Cruz on.

PAT: Yes, I do. I want Ted Cruz on.

GLENN: How about taking his best friend?

PAT: But I also do want Mike Lee on.

GLENN: Take his best friend.

PAT: And Jeb Hensarling. Both of them --

GLENN: What a surprise. They're both on. I have both of them on.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. What an amazing coincidence.

GLENN: Okay. So there's something going on in Congress. It's called the Restoring Regulatory Accountability Act. What this is --

PAT: It's my favorite act of all time.

GLENN: Listen to this. This is a crazy concept. We in Congress and in the Senate would like our power reinstated. It's crazy.

PAT: Oh, you power-hungry pigs.

GLENN: I know. I know. And that's coming from somebody who is really needy.

We have Jeb Hensarling on from Texas. Mike Lee from Utah. And welcome to the program. How are you guys, guys?

MIKE: I'm feeling needy. I'm feeling really needy just so you know.

JEB: Good.

GLENN: Okay. So before we get into this, I want to ask something of both of you.

Mike, why haven't you come out and endorsed Ted Cruz?

(laughter)

PAT: Seriously. Here's your chance.

MIKE: Yeah, I've got two really good friends in this race. I had three until this morning. Now I have two. It puts me in a difficult spot. I'm trying to be as supportive of both of them as I can.

PAT: Yeah, but one of them would really be a great president.

GLENN: One of them would be a great president. And I don't understand this.

PAT: One of them would be a better president than the other one.

GLENN: It's time for you to step up. And, Jeb, here's the thing, I'd like you to step up as well. Because we could just said Jeb has just endorsed Ted Cruz. And we'll even put the little explanation point after your --

JEB: I have an ego, but it's not so big as to think somebody would care about my endorsement.

Listen, Ted Cruz is a great principled conservative. He's excited our base. And if he gets to be president, I'm so looking forward to the day he shakes this place up.

But I read in the Constitution. It's not in my job description that I have to endorse so I think I'll let the voters work their will.

GLENN: Okay. Guys, tell me about the -- because what's happened to our country. And this is why I do think we have to have a constitutionalist as president, the separation of powers is almost nonexistent. And Congress has given away all of their power. So you guys are trying to pass this act to get the power of Congress back. What is it?

JEB: Mike, you go first.

MIKE: Sure. We formed the Article 1 Project for the purpose of reinvigorating Congress' power. Congress over the last 80 years has gradually delegated away almost all of its legislative power, to the point now where upwards of 95 percent of our laws are now made by executive branch bureaucrats. And as hard-working and well-intentioned and well-educated and highly specialized as these people might be, they don't work for us. We can't fire them. They're not elected. They're not even accountable to anyone who is elected. So we're trying to turn that around. We're trying to put the power back into the hands of people, specifically back in the hands of the people's elected representatives.

GLENN: So why is it, Jeb, that you can't get Congress to say -- because this is really self -- this is selfish of you in a way. You could look at it this way. You're saying, "Give me power." Well, that's what everybody in Washington always says. So what's the holdup for the people in Washington saying, we want our right, righteous, and constitutionally correct power back into this house?

JEB: Well, Glenn, you're right. A lot of this has been self-enfeeblement by a number of Congresses. This has been going on for decades. I'm reminded of Madison's great warning that our freedoms are usually lost through gradual and silent encroachments, as opposed to violent usurpations. So this has been going on for decades, but it's reached crisis proportion. And the first thing Congress has to do is decide that Article 1, Section 1, actually means what it says, and that all legislative powers reside in Congress. It doesn't reside with the new fourth branch of government, and that's the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

We're losing the rule of law to the discretion of regulators. And as we lose it, we've lost due process. We've lost our rights under the Constitution. And so the first thing we have to do and that Mike and are doing is sensitize our fellow members of Congress, "Hey, stop the bleeding. Let's reclaim we, the people, the elected representatives of we, the people, the constitutional powers in Article 1, Section 1. It has to do with something called checks and balances."

GLENN: So how many people do you have on this so far? How many people have signed on?

JEB: Well, it was just launched today, and we have ten members, principled conservatives on the Senate and House side who are excited about this. And I suspect a whole lot of others are going to want to join because people are frustrated. They're frustrated, not only at what the president has done with his infamous pen and his phone. He just doesn't seem to have a copy of the Constitution. But also frustrated at what Congress has done to itself. And so I think we'll see a whole lot more.

GLENN: I mean, I have to believe that there -- there is enough fear -- there should be enough fear of either a Bernie Sanders or a Donald Trump coming in there and completely changing the system just based on executive power. That you would think that you could make the case to both sides, "Look, guys, we could lose -- even the game we're playing right now, this could be over right now if we don't protect it in the Congress and in the Senate." Mike.

MIKE: One would think that. One would think that would strike fears into members of Congress. But you have to remember, Glenn, this, from the vantage point of many members of Congress, is a feature, not a bug. This is great. This is the current status quo for many members of Congress. It's just a marvelous thing. I talk about this at length in my book, Our Lost Constitution, in which I describe the fact that the reason has gotten addicted to this in the first place is because we like to pass stuff that makes it sound like we're getting stuff done. When, in fact, all we're doing is passing the buck to someone else who then has to do the difficult legwork, and most importantly, has to take up the accountability for whatever actually gets done. So it's much easier to just say, we shall have clean air. And we hereby delegate the task of what that means and actually putting meat on those bones and enforcing that legislation, than it is to come up with the details ourselves.

GLENN: So how do we get -- how do we get people to be a part -- have you guys talked to Mark Levin about this yet?

MIKE: We have not yet talked to Mark Levin. He's another one on our list. We have lots of people that we need to talk to. Mark is certainly at the top of the list.

GLENN: Yeah, Mark is great. I'm sure he'll be for this. But people can go to Facebook.com/article1. Just the number "1" project. Article 1 Project. And read all about it. And then, what, I guess, do we call our congressmen or our senator -- and will that make a difference, guys? We're so tired of being told to call and it won't make a difference.

JEB: I think it will. You know, when we, the people are being heard, it does make a difference. We've seen it across the last couple of election cycles. I think a lot of members will be responsive. And, again, I think on the Republican side and the conservative side, people feel the need to get back to first principles. I mean, it's not just part of the dusty legacy. It's our vision and destiny to be an exceptional country to go back to our foundational principles. And so I think it can do some good. And if people highlight and say, "It's time to take back the power of the purse. It's time to quit outsourcing your legislative power, I think it will make a difference."

GLENN: So, Jeb, what does it mean -- the goals are reclaiming Congress' power of the purse. Got it. Restoring congressional authority over regulation and regulators. Got it. Reigning in executive discretion. Got it. What does this one mean? Reforming executive, empowering legislative cliffs.

JEB: Well, what that has to do with is what we see on debt ceiling votes. What we see on these tragic votes like the omnibus where the entire government comes down to one single vote which is an abuse of the process. There's no transparency. So there are budget process reforms that you can put in place that will make it easier for Congress to reclaim their power of the purse. For example, a great principled conservative, Tom McClintock of California has a Default Prevention Act to make sure that the US doesn't default on its sovereign debt. Once you take out and segregate sovereign debt from the other expenditures, then all of a sudden the debt ceiling becomes something that can be used to get us off the road to bankruptcy. And what we have to do through the budget process reform is also ensure that the government is broken down into bite-sized pieces where the American people can see what their elected representatives are actually voting on. And instead, we're working on, Glenn, a budget process that was put in place by a super Democratic majority back in the Watergate era. It's just shameful. We have got to change this process.

GLENN: Mike, give me one or two examples of how this will affect the average person's life. Don't talk to me about the debt -- most people -- $19 trillion. They know that. But it doesn't affect their life day to day. How will this affect people's lives today?

MIKE: If we succeed, everything Americans buy has a chance of becoming more affordable.

GLENN: Why?

MIKE: The federal regulations that we have to comply with every year cost the American economy $2 trillion a year. And far from being absorbed by wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals, these are the kinds of costs that end up getting passed downstream. It's kind of a

backdoor invisible, very regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor and middle class of America, such that everything we buy, every good, every service that we purchase in the economy, is more expensive because of these regulations. And diminished wages and unemployment -- underemployment are also a consequence of these regulations. Those will all be eased if we succeed in this, if we return power to the people. Because a lot of those regulations won't happen when putting the regulations in place are actually elected by the people and subject to recall and termination by the people.

PAT: If I'm not mistaken, both of you guys are up -- both of you constitutional conservatives are up for reelection this year. It's too bad that people don't have a place to go where they could support your campaign if they really believe in what you're doing and want you to continue that work. Wouldn't it be nice --

GLENN: That would be nice.

PAT: -- if there was a place where they could go and maybe donate, offer --

GLENN: Is there a place where they could get behind one of your campaign's?

PAT: I mean, or both?

MIKE: There absolutely is. They can go to LeeforSenate.com. LeeforSenate.com. It's a beautiful place.

PAT: That's so hard to spell though. It's like L-E-E. That's hard.

MIKE: Yes, L-E-EforSenate.com. And it's a wonderful place.

GLENN: For Senate. Certainly there's not some place for Jeb as well.

JEB: You know what, JebHensarling.com is a place people can access as well. I know it's not as easy to spell as Lee, H-E-N-S-A-R-L-I-N-G.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Huh. .com. Both of you guys. That's crazy. And so wonderful --

PAT: Thanks for what you're doing.

GLENN: Thanks for that. Sincerely, you're two really good conservatives. We need you there. And I know Ted appreciates your implied endorsement.

(laughter)

Thanks a lot, guys. Appreciate it.

JEB: Thanks for having us, Glenn.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.