Vivek Ramaswamy

But I don't think that the right way to do it is to create a conservative regulatory state that replaces a liberal regulatory state. I think the right answer is actually to get in there and shut it down. I don't want to replace the left wing nanny state with a right wing nanny state. I want to get in there and actually dismantle the nanny state.

But I don't think that the right way to do it is to create a conservative regulatory state that replaces a liberal regulatory state. I think the right answer is actually to get in there and shut it down. I don't want to replace the left wing nanny state with a right wing nanny state. I want to get in there and actually dismantle the nanny state.

And I think it has been a long time in the United States, maybe ever in modern history that we've had A conservative leader at the national level who makes it their principal objective to dismantle the nanny state in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. That was a core issue.

And I think it has been a long time in the United States, maybe ever in modern history that we've had A conservative leader at the national level who makes it their principal objective to dismantle the nanny state in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. That was a core issue.

And I think it has been a long time in the United States, maybe ever in modern history that we've had A conservative leader at the national level who makes it their principal objective to dismantle the nanny state in all of its forms, the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state. That was a core issue.

focus of my candidacy, one of the things that I wish, and this is on me, not anybody else, that I should have done better was to make that more crystal clear as a focus without getting distracted by a lot of the shenanigans, let's just say, that happen as sideshows during a presidential campaign, but call that a lesson learned because I do think it's what the country needs now more than ever.

focus of my candidacy, one of the things that I wish, and this is on me, not anybody else, that I should have done better was to make that more crystal clear as a focus without getting distracted by a lot of the shenanigans, let's just say, that happen as sideshows during a presidential campaign, but call that a lesson learned because I do think it's what the country needs now more than ever.

focus of my candidacy, one of the things that I wish, and this is on me, not anybody else, that I should have done better was to make that more crystal clear as a focus without getting distracted by a lot of the shenanigans, let's just say, that happen as sideshows during a presidential campaign, but call that a lesson learned because I do think it's what the country needs now more than ever.

Can I say a word about the conditions he was operating in? Because I think that's why I'm far more excited for this time around. is that a lot has changed in the legal landscape. So Donald Trump did not have the Supreme Court backdrop in 2016 that he does today. So there's some really important cases that have come down from the Supreme Court. One is West Virginia versus EPA.

Can I say a word about the conditions he was operating in? Because I think that's why I'm far more excited for this time around. is that a lot has changed in the legal landscape. So Donald Trump did not have the Supreme Court backdrop in 2016 that he does today. So there's some really important cases that have come down from the Supreme Court. One is West Virginia versus EPA.

Can I say a word about the conditions he was operating in? Because I think that's why I'm far more excited for this time around. is that a lot has changed in the legal landscape. So Donald Trump did not have the Supreme Court backdrop in 2016 that he does today. So there's some really important cases that have come down from the Supreme Court. One is West Virginia versus EPA.

I think it's probably the most important case of our generation. In 2022, that came down and said that if Congress has not passed a rule into law itself through the halls of Congress, And it relates to what they call a major question, a major policy or economic question. It can't be done by the stroke of a pen by a regulator, an unelected bureaucrat either.

I think it's probably the most important case of our generation. In 2022, that came down and said that if Congress has not passed a rule into law itself through the halls of Congress, And it relates to what they call a major question, a major policy or economic question. It can't be done by the stroke of a pen by a regulator, an unelected bureaucrat either.

I think it's probably the most important case of our generation. In 2022, that came down and said that if Congress has not passed a rule into law itself through the halls of Congress, And it relates to what they call a major question, a major policy or economic question. It can't be done by the stroke of a pen by a regulator, an unelected bureaucrat either.

That quite literally means most federal regulations today are unconstitutional. Then this year comes down a different big one, another big one from the Supreme Court in the Loper-Bright case, which held that historically for the last 50 years in this country, The doctrine has been, it's called Chevron deference.

That quite literally means most federal regulations today are unconstitutional. Then this year comes down a different big one, another big one from the Supreme Court in the Loper-Bright case, which held that historically for the last 50 years in this country, The doctrine has been, it's called Chevron deference.

That quite literally means most federal regulations today are unconstitutional. Then this year comes down a different big one, another big one from the Supreme Court in the Loper-Bright case, which held that historically for the last 50 years in this country, The doctrine has been, it's called Chevron deference.

It's a doctrine that says that federal courts have to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law. They now toss that out the window and say, no, no, no, the federal courts no longer have to defer to an agency's interpretation of what the law actually is. The combination of those two cases is seismic in its impact for the regulatory state.

It's a doctrine that says that federal courts have to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law. They now toss that out the window and say, no, no, no, the federal courts no longer have to defer to an agency's interpretation of what the law actually is. The combination of those two cases is seismic in its impact for the regulatory state.

It's a doctrine that says that federal courts have to defer to an agency's interpretation of the law. They now toss that out the window and say, no, no, no, the federal courts no longer have to defer to an agency's interpretation of what the law actually is. The combination of those two cases is seismic in its impact for the regulatory state.