Estimated Time to Read: 3 minutes
Whenever a social or political problem arises, the instinctive response from politicians and citizens alike is predictable: “We need a law for that.” It sounds responsible, decisive, even virtuous, but more often than not, it is wrong. The United States, Texas specifically, are not suffering from a lack of laws. We are suffering from a lack of consistent enforcement of the laws we already have.
The Founders understood something we seem to have forgotten: liberty is not preserved by endless legislation, but by limited government faithfully executing its duties. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45 that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” Lawmaking was never meant to be an exercise in constant expansion. It was meant to provide clear rules applied equally.
Both the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution reflect deep skepticism of centralized power. Texas Policy Research’s (TPR) Liberty Principles echo this design, emphasizing that government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, not to micromanage society. When lawmakers respond to every problem with new statutes, they dilute accountability and expand discretion, the very conditions that erode freedom.
The modern immigration debate offers a clear example. Federal immigration law did not suddenly appear in the last decade. What changed during the Trump administration was not the law, but its enforcement. When existing statutes were applied consistently, illegal border crossings fell to historic lows. No constitutional amendment was required. No sweeping new code was passed. Political will made the difference.
That outcome aligns with the Constitution itself. Article II requires the Executive to “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Failure to enforce the law is not compassion or neutrality; it is abandonment of duty. Selective enforcement undermines the rule of law. When laws are applied inconsistently, citizens are no longer governed by law, but by discretion.
Classical liberal thinkers repeatedly cautioned against this pattern. John Locke insisted that laws must be known and impartially applied. Frédéric Bastiat warned that the law becomes destructive when it is used for social engineering rather than justice. Friedrich Hayek explained that expanding legal complexity is often a symptom of government attempting to control outcomes it cannot manage.
Scripture reinforces this truth. Ecclesiastes 8:11 (KJV) observes, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” The problem is not the absence of law, but the absence of execution. Romans 13 affirms that civil authority exists to punish wrongdoing and reward good, but only if it acts.
Texas is not immune to over-legislation. Each session produces thousands of bills, many addressing issues already covered by statute or constitutional authority. Lawmakers should always ask whether enforcement of existing law has failed before expanding government power. Too often, new laws create overlapping authority, regulatory confusion, and selective compliance.
Unfortunately, the call for new laws often masks a lack of courage. It is easier to pass another statute than to enforce existing ones and confront political pressure or bureaucratic resistance. But liberty requires leaders willing to say: We already have the authority. We already have the law. We will enforce it.
“We need a law for that” has become a habit, but it is one we must break. A free people are not governed by the number of laws on the books, but by the fairness and consistency with which they are enforced. Fewer laws, faithfully applied, will make for a stronger state and republic. Before writing another law, we should prove ourselves faithful with the ones we already have.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
