Donald Trump just Saved the U.S. 5G Industry from China

Donald Trump, in only the 4th time in 70 years, disallowed the merger of Broadcom and QUALCOMM. Broadcom is the 5G leader out of Singapore with ties to Huawei, the giant Chinese electronics conglomerate that's also heavily tied to the PLA. The merger would have resulted in the dismantling of Qualcomm, with Broadcom and Huawei taking any advanced 5G technology and leaving the rest for scraps.

>> how do you know the FCC, the FTC, and the SEC are part of the Administrative State? Do you know what other agencies are part of it? <<

I’ve been following the FCC since 1954, when I got my first radio license. So I do know quite a bit about the Commission.

The FCC used to have seven members, all appointed by the POTUS with concurrance by the U. S. Senate. But the number of Commissioners was reduced to five in about 1980.

According to the Communications Act, first passed in 1934 and revised in 1996, POTUS may appoint a maximum of three FCC Commissioners from his own political party. The other two Commissioners may be independents, or they may be members of a party different from the POTUS.

All Commissioners serve fixed terms of five years. The POTUS is not given the power to remove them, so probably the only way to get rid of a Commissioner would be for the House to impeach him and for the Senate to find him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

From among the five Commissioners, the POTUS designates one as Chairman. The Chairman then has power to appoint and remove the various staff civil servants who do 99% of the Commission’s technical and legal work. So for all practical purposes, the Chairman can control the day-to-day operations of the Commission.

Presumably, the Chairman will try to follow the policy preferences of the POTUS. But legally speaking, he is under no obligation to do so.

I guess the POTUS could designate another Commissioner to become Chairman if he didn’t like the way the current Chairman was behaving. But I don’t recall that such an event has ever occurred.

Also, the other four Commissioners theoretically could vote to repeal or change some internal policy or personnel appointment made by the Chairman. But it’s extremely unlikely, given that two of the other Commissioners are from the same political party as the Chairman.

The precise way the FCC makes the “laws” (more properly called “rules”) governing telecommunications is spelled out under the congressionally passed Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This act also covers the rulemaking powers and responsibilities of most other Federal independent agencies, as well as rulemaking by the cabinet departments of the Executive Branch. The rules enacted under the APA are subject to review by the Federal Courts of Appeal, where those rules often get overturned — either on constitutional or statutory grounds.

As for other administrative agencies that (like the FCC) operate independently of the Executive Branch, I can recall only the FTC, the SEC, the CFTC and the BOG of the Fed. There used to be the ICC and the CAB. Thankfully, the latter two were abolished during the anti-regulatory wave that began under Carter and came to full fruition under Reagan. There are still a few other regulartory agencies that operate like the FCC, with independent Commissioners, but my memory fails.

Last but not least, to get back to the original subject of this thread, the FCC does not get involved in mergers unless at least one of the merging companies is also a telecommunications carrier, and it does not get involved in international trade other than its very minor role in “type acceptance” of imported devices that might emit even tiny amounts of RF energy. So it’s very hard to imagine how they would have anything to do with the proposed purchase of Qualcomm by Broadcomm.

The simple question I had was if the NSA is an Independent/Administrative State agency. Honestly, their website doesn’t make it clear to me. But I found

https://www.usa.gov/independent-agencies

So, if it’s not on this list, I guess it’s not in the Administrative State (AS). I’m flummoxed that the CIA is on this list. Why in the world would the CIA be in the AS? Do you see any reason why the CIA doesn’t come under the DOD and merge with the NSA as part of draining and cleaning up the swamp?

By definition everything in the AS is unconstitutional. Possibly some functions like the CIA are constitutional but its independence makes it unconstitutional.

>> I’m flummoxed that the CIA is on this list. Why in the world would the CIA be in the AS? <<

Yep, I saw that list also. It’s downright misleading.

The CIA is “independent” only to the extent that it is not under one of the traditional “cabinet” departments. It is definitely not an adminstrative “fourth branch” agency.

More specifically, the Director of the CIA serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. He is obliged to take orders and direction from the POTUS, and he can be removed by the POTUS at any time. So there’s no persuasive argument that the CIA is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the administrative agencies like the FCC and the FTC truly are independent. Their Commissioners are appointed by the President, but they serve fixed five-year terms and cannot be removed by the POTUS even if they work directly against the policy lines laid down by the WH. I think that kind of arrangement should have been ruled unconstitutional long ago. But it just ain’t gonna happen in the Federal courts. No chance at all.

Should the CIA have been part of DOD, just as is NSA? Might have been a good idea in 1947, when the CIA was set up. But that horse left the barn long ago. Nobody with knowledge of Washington DC reality expects it will be coming back.

>> the Commerce Clause of the Constitution only gives Congress the power to regulate foreign trade <<

Not quite. The Constituion also gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between and among the various states of the union, like the trade between Maryland and Virginia.

Then, and whether for good or ill, the courts of have always agreed over the past 100+ years that since radio waves can travel across both state lines and international borders, radio transmissions fall into the category of “interstate and foreign commerce.”

Now you might say that some radio waves don’t go across state borders because they are too weak. Or other transmissions aren’t “commercial” — like ham radio. You’d be correct on both counts.

But even those weak waves and non-commercial transmissions have the potential to interfere with broadcasts, police radios, and other radio transmissions that DO go across state lines and international borders.

Therefore, the Courts have always allowed the feds to regulate emissions of radio-frequency energy that are too weak to cross from one jurisdiction into another, plus control over transmissions that have no commercial aspects. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, there’s no realistic prospect that these regulatory authorities will be overturned by the courts or repealed by the Congress.

courts of have always agreed over the past 100+ years that since radio waves can travel across both state lines and international borders, radio transmissions fall into the category of “interstate and foreign commerce.”

Yes, but like probably most of the federal court decisions over the last 100+ years, they have not been based on clear constitutional-based reasoning or support. I would say most Court decisions for the last 100+ years are unconstitutional.

Here, to the degree that certain communications are interfering with intestate commerce, to that limited degree, I think the feds could constitutionally step in since that was the limited intent of the Commerce Clause to begin with - fix hindrances to interstate commerce.

But that is not close to what the seeping independent and unconstitutional powers of the FCC. Constitutionally, Congress would need to deal with conflicting communication issues as relates to interstate commerce or protection (police communications) on that limited scale.

I'm saying that the Administrative State has to go. I know that sounds impossible and, but for the Divine Providence of God Almighty, it would be. But my goal is to do my little bit to MAGA by restoring our Free Constitutional Republic, and I think God is with us to help us do just that - and I think the "impossibility" of Trump's election is the first step.

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.