FBI Las Vegas Cover Up Story Breaks Today at True Pundit

[Jim W N]

Salvavida, the constitutional rule is that Congress may do what is NECESSARY and PROPER (art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18) to implement the authority delegated to it by the Constitution AS LONG AS that implementation stays within those limited powers (art. VI, cl. 2).

For instance, your Code 10 Air Force laws are necessary and proper to implement art. I, sec. 8, cl. 14, and is, thus, constitutional.

But NOWHERE does the Constitution permits Congress to delegate its national lawmaking authority to agencies. Thus, the Administrative State is unconstitutional.

[Salvavida]

I never suggested Congress can be usurped. But the entities by which are created and funded by Congress have to be able to create regulations by which they are governed. That is common sense.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1942 is an act of Congress. So I am confused what you mean by the Administrative State. It is not a real entity, correct? If any CFR or statute is not tied to law passed by Congress, or is outside the authority of the organization being created, it is unconstitutional on its face; but that doesn't mean the system of governance is unconstitutional. If organizations cannot regulate themselves, then lets go back to tribal and clan law.

Would you say the Marine Corps overstepped its bounds in creating and performing its annual "Toys for Tots" program because it doesn't have anything to do with Title 10? How about providing a color guard for a baseball game? I would argue they are recruiting tools in their best interest, but are not specified.

Getting back to NSA, the Department of Defense ultimately created it. Nothing is created ex-nihilo. Are you suggesting the President as Commander in Chief didn't have the authority to compartment and add additional resources to a military capability that already existed, with Congressional funding? DoD's mission didn't change from the Department of War. There is nothing in the Constitution that says SIGINT must be created and funded. Nor does tactical nukes for that matter.

If that is the case, then it is clear everyone didn't know what the Constitution meant. And if everyone aside from one person (you) do not understand it, then we are done as a nation. So enjoy the ride all the way to its dismemberment and let's hope for a future government that will properly address anyone in government that proposes something unconstitutional, to be led outside and shot in the public square.

[Jim W N]

“the entities by which are created and funded by Congress have to be able to create regulations by which they are governed”

Of course, but it is how the DEPARTMENT ITSELF is run, NOT national regulations and laws which is why the Administrative State is unconstitutional.

If you still want to deny the existence of the Administrative State, read this

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/sr116.pdf

or this

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/administrative-state-constitutional-government#Part1

or even this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2017/07/05/how-many-federal-agencies-exist-we-cant-drain-the-swamp-until-we-know/#7fe8c3791aa2

[Salvavida]

The Heritage Foundation is the best article. I wish you would have included it earlier because it has a working definition. Particularly useful are the references at the end. I wish he would have used a defense example.

I concluded NSA is not unconstitutional, in that SIGINT is inherently a military capability under Title X. As for not going before a vote in Congress.....I would give President Truman the benefit of the doubt. His lens is from WWII. He saw the Battle for the Atlantic and the Battle of the Pacific both decided by code cracking (Germany's Enigma and the Japanese Naval Code- MAGIC). He knew the preservation of the US was its ability to keep that capability a secret, so approving the memo that essentially re-arranged the US SIGINT program changed, but the constitutional authority didn't. It still resided under DoD.

But we can agree the abuse of power can lead to it being used unconstitutionally. EO 12333 came as a result of Army intelligence targeting US citizens opposed to the Vietnam War, so it does happen. But that's not a law issue, it's an abuse of power issue. I am no fan of EOs. DJT uses them as law just as other presidents have.

All the other examples given, I would have to agree. I note they are heavily in the labor and environmental areas. Traditionally liberal areas of interest.

Defense is a different animal because every single directive must have a statutory authority. I recently corrected a defense directive because it was citing the wrong authority (US Code); which is inherently derivative from the Constitution.

I also noted the author agrees CFR isn't unconstitutional in itself, either. But it can be used for power that is unconstitutional. There is a fine line.

I do not see it corrected unless the entire instruction in civics is revamped. If Betsy Devos isn't working on that, she is wrong. But that would be unconstitutional.....unless it ONLY applied to all government employees, and military officers. Hopefully, it would trickle to state universities....but you change what you have authority to change.

Good topic.