Posted on 03/12/2018 12:02:13 PM PDT by Scooter100
Unbelievable corruption at the FBI if the True Pundit story is true. We're living in a cesspool. I couldn't post the URL, "story blocked" You'll have to search for it. These people are animals.
It sounds like a large amount of unsubstantiated conjecture
What an effective appointment to head State! Mike Pompeo will have the rats running out in the open, he probably knows many of the patriots already in place.
Look, many things are country does is unconstitutional. Any vehicle of governance can be unconstitutional if the Constitution is ignored. Name anything, to include Congress itself.
But to suggest NSA is unconstitutional without offering a reason why, is ridiculous.
And then proposing to put it under CIA (which by the way, is more unconstitutional than NSA ever could be). CIA, the same organization that spied on Congress....so yeah.
Your beef is oversight and the lack thereof. This is no different than the Parkland shootings. You are blaming NSA for actions of LEADERSHIP and the courts failing to follow the Constitution and appropriate regulations.
Constitutionality is the most important issue regarding any federal act or organization. The NSA is unconstitutional if it is part of the unconstitutional Administrative State. Are they? Does anyone know for sure?
Well here’s what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say:
“The NSA was created [secretly by Harry Truman] in part out of the belief that the importance and distinct character of communications intelligence warranted an organization distinct from both the armed forces and the other intelligence agencies. While it operates within the Department of Defense, the NSA also belongs to the Intelligence Community (a coalition of 17 intelligence agencies) and as such acts under the supervision of the director of national intelligence. The director of the NSA is a military officer of flag rank (i.e., a general or an admiral) with a minimum of three stars. Not being a creation of Congress, the NSA often acts outside of congressional review; it is the most secret of all U.S. intelligence agencies.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Security-Agency
Certainly sounds like an unaccountable Administrative Agency to me. As such, it should be either be moved as a direct report under the President or dissolved.
I have also said, that it still should be questioned as to the need for all these Nazi-esque “security” organizations.
As I understand it the CIA evolved from the WWII OSS, our attempt at that time to have good intelligence against our wartime enemies. Seems reasonable and necessary. Why can’t the Central Intelligence Agency be where “signal intelligence (SIGINT) resides? I have always thought that the FBI and the CIA are direct reports through a legit cabinet department to the President. If not, THAT needs to get fixed.
Look, the whole point here is 1) stop supporting the unconstitutional 80% of the feds and 2) clean up and pare down the IC so it is effective to protect the American people from our enemies instead of “protecting” the government from the American People which has been in process for some time now.
You act as if all creations of Congress act constitutionally. That is never the case. It takes ethical people to do that. That is the responsibility of elected representatives. If they do not accomplish that, it doesn't matter what organization it falls under. The Klapperts, Comeys, and McCabes or the world will just lie.
Amen. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Never said that. I usually say just the opposite. If you follow my posts and comments at all, you'll see that I question most all federal acts, congressional or otherwise. For instance Obamacare is flatly unconstitutional.
Encyclopedia Britannica as an accurate or knowledgeable source. The assertion that NSA acts outside of Congressional oversight is absolutely false.
You dodge and weave pretty good there Salvavida. Why don't you come out from hiding and provide a reliable source that gives a clear and concise definition and description of the organization and function of the NSA.
Brush up on your Chinese because arguing these points doesn't move the football one inch.
you think that the USA can do without SIGINT
More stuff I never said. You're beginning to sound like the Lying Left who dodges the issue and lies about what the other side said.
No one on this thread is talking about what happened in Vegas.
Fine, discuss the corruption at the FBI, but what about
COULD THIS BE TRUE?
The closest thing to fitting occam’s razor and the puzzles left by this massacre was the Saudi assassination thing but it didn’t fit perfectly.... assassinations are about stealth. When they go wrong, you don’t want to attract attention to your sneaking around getting an Arsenal in a hotel room by blasting a bunch of innocent concert goers.
If it is true that Paddock was connected to any terror org including Antifa, let’s see those connections. If true, there is motive as it is reasonable to think that country fans might be Trump’s people.
One thing provable might be the records of Paddock’s old neighbors. He had that giant gun safe. Wasn’t that years ago? This article purports that Paddock only started collecting guns when Trump won. Is that false? If so, how can the rest of it be trusted?
If you could do that, maybe I'd understand your position.
Edson Range is a rifle range on Camp Pendleton, CA. Guess what? Congress didn't create it. Does that make it unconstitutional?
Help me understand why you think NSA should be removed from DoD, and placed under CIA, which is a HUMINT organization that only reports to the President and his politically appointed DNI. Truman didn't create anything without congressional authorization. Where did the money come from? His lemonade stand outside the WH?
How about NGA? Unconstitutional? Cool. Maps and other geodesic aids are overrated.
I have made it clear that IF the NSA is part of the unconstitutional Administrative State, then it is unconstitutional. Pretty clear.
You seem to not understand that the fourth branch of the federal government, the Administrative State, is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not authorize this unaccountable branch that apparently no one really knows how big it really is nor who these rogue agencies report to. Federal tyranny run amok.
Congress creating something or not creating something is NOT the standard of constitutionality. THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF as written and originally understood and intended is the standard. So Truman creating something with congressional authorization does not per se mean it is constitutional.
If the NGA is part of the Administrative State, then it is unconstitutional.
If you are barking about an action Truman did, and no one made any objection...then it's probably a battle you are not going to win, even if you are right. It seems the Director of the CIA had a good idea, sent it to the Deputy NSC, and then it went to Truman. I'd have to dig into the archives to see what deal was made for funding, but it could not have been implemented without some acknowledgment from Congress that it need to be secret, and it needed to be built.
You’ve been in D.C. so long that you can’t see the forest for the trees. The Administrative or Regulatory State are a huge collection of agencies that “regulate” (ie. make law apart from Congress, the ONLY lawmaking branch the Constitution allows) that are basically unaccountable to the people of the United States because they do not directly report to any of the three accountable constitutional branches.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/sr116.pdf
I am not able to open the link. Can you send a reputable source that defines what you are talking about?
Are you saying that US Code is unlawful because it isn't part of Constitution? Or the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), or the US Government Manual? The IRS? I don't know what you are talking about, but if you give me an address, I will be happy to go downtown and kick the door open and inquire as to where they derive their constitutional authority.
But I think it is intuitive the US government cannot be operated solely by the Constitution. There has to be administration. Are you saying there should not be administration to implement laws?
You do realize that whatever the manner of administration is adopted, there has to be congressional oversight to ensure compliance with the Constitution and public law? If that doesn't happen (which it does not because the citizenry doesn't demand it), then everything is up for grabs.
The citizenry MUST elect officials that follow the Constitution by using sound hermeneutics of original intent. Absent that, they should not expect anything different than what we have today. The NSA is constitutional because the federal government created it as a means to defend the nation, and Congress has been an advocate for its existence because they cut the check every year when the NDAA is signed.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the LandU.S. Const., Art VI, Cl. 2.
U.S. code outside the enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution to feds are invalid and void. Thus, your Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) not passed by Congress is unconstitutional because ONLY CONGRESS may pass national law. The IRS is validated, unfortunately, by the Sixteenth Amendment.
I think it is intuitive the US government cannot be operated solely by the Constitution.
Then you're a good Anti-American Leftist in favor of unlimited government and federal tyranny which by definition are unconstitutional acts of the feds.
The NSA is constitutional because the federal government created it
Hardly. It is part of the, “administrative state” in which the authority to make regulations (effective as laws) is unlimited, centralized, and delegated to unelected bureaucrats.
You need to get out of the beltway for awhile so you can see the chaotic mess you are in the middle of in D.C. But if you actually think it is valid for the federal government to go outside its constitutional authority, then I don't know why you are on this site which stands for our Free Constitutional Republic.
And if you actually think it is valid for the federal government to go outside its constitutional authority, we have no common ground to have a coherent discussion here because my whole premise is the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and there is NO valid federal act outside enumerated constitutional authority (id.).
The problem I have, and you have not answered, is if you think the Constitution should be the sole document (no other) to IMPLEMENT law?
Case in point. Title 10 of US Code for the Armed Forces. The Constitution does not spell out how defending the nation should be performed, but its authority is derived from the Constitution itelf.
If you posit that the Constitution and nothing else can run the government, then you are a lonely man with that view. No one believes that but you. No one. It is the first I've heard of it, and I am a staunch constitutionalist. I can tell you no one would be able to do their jobs without implementing instructions (not talking about authority).
I would enjoy Mark Levin or Chris Plant opining on this because as it stands, it is a freak show proposition. So congrats.
Your words, not mine.
Title 10 of the U.S. Code for the Armed Forces falls under the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8. so it is irrelevant here.
The “administrative state” including NSA, makes regulations (effective as laws) and acts that are unlimited, centralized, and delegated to unelected bureaucrats, and is thus, flatly unconstitutional.
H-o-l-y Sh!t..
Just the US military alone cannot be run by the Constitution. It has no implementing guidance. No procedure. We are not talking issues of law. We are talking about "how to do what we do."
Do you realize the Constitution would be unreadable? It would require amendments every Friday?
I'd grab a constitutional lawyer or a professor or someone you trust that is an expert in this. What you are proposing is gibberish. In fact, I would post a topic on FR so that everyone can opine, and you would see the logic fallacy in your thinking.
Does the Congress do a poor job ensuring constitutionality? Yes it does. There cannot be two ways of interpreting the Constitution. There cannot be competing ideologies in determining what it says. There can be only one.
But to say all of the government can be run off of the Constitution and nothing else is crack-smoking lunacy. If that were the case, the founders would never have issued authoritative documents other than the Constitution. As it stands, history and reason is not in your favor. But go ahead and post the proposition for all to see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.