[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.