Posted on 03/12/2018 6:53:09 PM PDT by muleskinner
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.
>> He is in charge of the FCC and other federal organizations responsible for trade <<
Nope. The FCC is an “independent” agency. The President appoints the Chairman, but he has no direct legal authority to control the FCC’s policy making.
Also, the FCC doesn’t get involved in routine trade matters, other than to issue or deny type-acceptance permissions for imported (as well as domestically made) devices that emit RF energy.
This is hardly routine.
The Congress has delegated power to the President on this issue and on Tariffs and Trade Agreements.
I don’t know the specific statute but if it didn’t exist, believe me there would be lawsuits filed on that specific issue.
“Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the multi-agency panel charged with reviewing foreign investments in US companies that may have national security implications. If CFIUS finds such a transaction poses a threat to US national security, it recommends that the President use his authority under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Section 721) to block or order divestment of the acquisition. “
Here is the intervention authority I think the President is using.
>> This is hardly routine <<
Yep, and it’s also not a “trade” matter. It’s a “merger” matter that involves manufacturing companies, not communications carriers.
Moreover, the FCC doesn’t get involved in manufacturing mergers — unless maybe two putatively merging manufacturers are also competitive communications carriers.
But anyway, what difference — at this point — does it make?
The Constitution trumps federal statute (U.S. Const, Art VI, Cl. 2).
If it’s not an enumerated power delegated by the Constitution, it is not a valid federal act.
Faulty Constitutional analysis.
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.
Explain the "faulty constitutional analysis".
Isn't that also true for the NSA and every agency that is part of the rogue "Administrative/Regulatory State", the unconstitutional fourth branch of the feds?
I don’t think you understand the US Constitution, so it would be a pedantic exercise.
When you actually have a coherent and supportable argument, let me know. Your conclusory assertions are meaningless.
Since no Supreme Court Case has deemed these actions unconstitutional - the obligation to prove rests with you.
Your citation of the Constitution is not supporting evidence or a viable argument for your assertion.
Now, you can claim victory and hold your CrackJack Box Constitutional Trophy high, because you obviously have no serious knowledge on the matter. ...Or you can prove your ridiculous assertion.
U.S. code AND decisions of the Supreme Court are trumped by the Constitution and any act or decision that violates or goes outside the enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution to feds are invalid and void.
Again, explain the "faulty constitutional analysis".
Are you dense?
Copy and pasting the Constitution is not a viable argument.
It’s your interpretation and analysis that is incorrect. Make an argument that drills down a little deeper.
How is my analysis incorrect?
I have to assume your analysis because there is none.
Stating or citing a reference, and making that your argument, makes your analysis faulty.
If you can just explain what your actual argument is, we can move on and debate.
You merely repeat yourself over and over, but that is not an argument.
What’s your constitution-based argument with supportable rationale? So far it’s been ZIP.
>> Isn’t that also true for the NSA and every agency that is part of the rogue “Administrative/Regulatory State”, the unconstitutional fourth branch of the feds? <<
Nope. The head of NSA is a military officer of flag rank. He answers to the POTUS via the chain of command. The agency is not independent by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it’s part of the Department of Defense.
Moreover, the heads of most civilian departments serve at the pleasure of the POTUS, and they are answerable to him. He may give them orders, and they can be removed at any time. These departments are part of the Executive branch.
But for certain “independent” agencies like the FCC, the FTC, the SEC and some others, the POTUS only appoints the members. He can’t give them binding orders, and he can’t fire them except in extreme circumstances. Maybe most importantly, they are answerable to Congress, but not to the POTUS.
(If it were up to me, I’d declare the latter agencies unconstitutional, since they really are a “fourth” branch. But the Courts have not agreed. And there’s no chance that they will agree any time soon.)
Thanks.
Do you have a link that supports clearly and concisely what you’ve laid out here regarding the NSA?
IMO, the NSA is overkill and threatens to be more about “protecting” the government rather than protecting the American people. I think the functions of the NSA should be folded into the CIA. What do you think?
I find it very difficult to distinguish a valid agency under the Cabinet of the Executive Branch and a rogue agency like the FCC, the FTC, the SEC under the unconstitutional Administrative State, the fourth branch.
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 Land
.....U.S. Const., Art VI, Cl. 2.
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.