Tag Archives: Congress

Military Martial Law Bill Sneaked Through By Senate | Infowars Kit Daniels

Posted by Admin.    Original date:  January 22, 2016.  Courtesy of From The Trenches World Report.com

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell is attempting to fast track a “war powers” bill that will allow President Obama nearly unlimited power to deploy the military anywhere in the world for any length of time – including on U.S. soil.   

“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy,” Defense One reported.

In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.

Several senators, including Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, were surprised by McDonnell’s decision to fast-track the bill after a year of deep in-fighting over similar measures in the Senate.

“He did?” he asked the Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday morn­ing when reporters informed him about the bill.

Even some Senate Democrats have an issue with a new authorization without geographical restrictions placed on the president.

“I’m for the Con­gress vot­ing on an AUMF; of course it de­pends what the AUMF looks like,” Sen. Robert Men­en­dez said Thursday. “I don’t want a blank check.”

It’s also interesting to note McConnell is trying to push through the bill on a Friday as an unprecedented blizzard slams the northeast U.S., including Washington, D.C.

Source

 

Bang the Drum Slowly II

Quintas Dias.  War clouds loom as the drummer boy bangs his drums and calls the piper to the colors.  Or is this just more political theater?

 

I don’t think so.  The US started this [expletive] and now appears bogged down in a quagmire of its own making and I doubt it can avoid the [expletive] blowing back. Stupid fools in allowing Turkey to join NATO.  Turkey and Russia may have geopolitical differences and have squabbled in the past.  But you tell me, who really controls Turkish politics?  The Donmeh does and they have always been aligned with Israel and we know all about Israeli games, don’t we?
Dave Hedges bothers me.  I am not sure if he is a covert neocon shill, but he appears to have joined the bandwagon messing with Putin at every chance possible.
As far as both of these actors being under the control of the global banking elites, in bummer’s case that is obvious.  It is much less so in Putin’s case.
The obvious question of the banksters driving events is that these people are not stupid.  A nuclear exchange will definitely ruin Russia and the United States and most of Europe and a great deal of Asia.  Is the NWO crowd that assured that they can ride out a cataclysm concealed in their DUMB facilities while a nuclear winter descends on the world?
All industry destroyed.
All crop lands destroyed.
Most infrastructure destroyed.
Humanity reduced to rags and largely destroyed.
Remember, the NWO crowd worships money…where is the bargain in ruining the world’s capacity to generate wealth?
Or is the game plan aimed at opening the doors to the United States for a sudden takeover by hostile forces…Trojan war style?
I suspect the later is the real game plan and the Chicoms and Putin may be part of it.  Why?  Because it is in their interests to take down the unipolar bent United States and its quest for global hegemony.

Ron Paul: Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Ron Paul vs Congressional Resolution on Russia
Too few listened then. Will they listen now? Image source: http://www.zerohedge.com

Ron Paul.  December 6th 2014.  Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:

The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?

The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?

The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.

The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.

Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy — while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!

Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the US has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!

The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not even bother to read these resolutions before voting?

In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?

Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”

The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement that “military intervention” by the Russian Federation in Ukraine “poses a threat to international peace and security.” Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we accept that Russia is posing a “threat” to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These are the slippery slopes that lead to war.

This dangerous legislation passed today, December 4, with only ten (!) votes against! Only ten legislators are concerned over the use of blatant propaganda and falsehoods to push such reckless saber-rattling toward Russia.

Here are the Members who voted “NO” on this legislation. If you do not see your own Representative on this list call and ask why they are voting to bring us closer to war with Russia! If you do see your Representative on the below list, call and thank him or her for standing up to the warmongers.

Voting “NO” on H. Res. 758:

1) Justin Amash (R-MI)
2) John Duncan (R-TN)
3) Alan Grayson, (D-FL)
4) Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
5) Walter Jones (R-NC)
6) Thomas Massie (R-KY)
7) Jim McDermott (D-WA)
8 George Miller (D-CA)
9) Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
10 Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

See more by former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul at his Facebook page where this article first appeared, and at his other projects RonPaulInstitute.org, VoicesofLiberty.com.

This article was also presented to the public at:  Activist Post

A picture is worth a thousand words

from WiseGeek.com Definition of PENUMBRA. 1. a: a space of partial illumination (as in an eclipse) between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light . b: a shaded region …

Three Kinds of Knowledge:  the Nature of each thing, the Cause of each thing, and the Influence of each thing.  ~ Celtic Triad

“We be of one blood thou and I” ~ Rudyard Kipling. There is no “color” or “racial divide” definition in “We the People”. To pursue such a divide, in any manner, is anti-thematic to the intent upheld and confirmed within the document.

Three Manifestations of Humanity:  affectionate Bounty, loving Manner, and praiseworthy Knowledge.  ~  Celtic Triad.

Situational Awareness: name all the ways re-education is at work in society. Re-education camps become unnecessary when an illicit power gains the ability to alter the roots of society and its structures.  When if ever has intellectual deceit been counted as an act of honor?

Three things must be united before good may come of them:  Thinking Well,Speaking Well, and Acting Well.  ~  Celtic Triad

It most certainly does matter.  Those who forget history; who throw away the achievements and the purposes for which lives strove and fought, doom themselves to repeat it all.

Three ways to lose Excellence:  to become a Servant to one’s passions, to not learn from the Examples set by others, to indulge in Excess.  ~  Celtic Triad.

Source: Rainbow Resource. When these signers were called, what did they accomplish? When you were ‘called’ what did you accomplish?

Three things by which Excellence is established:  taking all things in moderation with Nothing in Excess, Abidance to Oaths, and Acceptance of Responsibility.  ~  Celtic Triad.

What falls, can be set upright once more – but that takes more than words.  Image Source: tclehner.wordpress.com.

Three gains of those who heed the advisements of the Old Ones:  Illumination, Wisdom, and Clarity.  ~ Celtic Triad.

For a People who cannot envision the value of what the Constitution represents and is designed to sustain, their memory loss; their identity loss becomes painfully apparent.

Three Purposes for the Return of Souls to this world:  to collect into the soul the Properties of All Being, to acquire Knowledge of All Things, and to acquire the Power to Overcome Chaos.  ~  Celtic Triad.

“…Another idol has replaced me.” “What idol?” “…a golden one.” “There is nothing on this Earth more terrifying to me than a life doomed to poverty! May I ask why you condemn me with such severity the honest pursuit of substance?” “…you fear the world too much Ebenizer. You’ve changed.” “Changed! Perhaps grown wiser, but I have not changed towards you.” “…Our contract was Old when it was made! When we were both poor and content to be so. When it was made, you were another man. I release you Ebinezer.” “Have I ever sought release?” “…in words no. In another atmosphere of life. In everything that made my love of any worth in your sight. Tell me Ebinezer, if the conflict had never been between us, would you seek me out now?” “You think not?” “…no. I would think otherwise if I could. If you were free today, would you choose a penniless girl?” ~ metaphorical conversation from the movie Disney’s A Christmas Carol.

Three things most precious to Humankind:  Health, Liberty, and Virtue.  ~  Celtic Triad.

Remember who you are.

Cyrellys.  I am ROAR.  Stand and be counted among the Strong.

 

 

 

Video: WW3 RED ALERT! U.S. House of Representatives PASSES RESOLUTION against RUSSIA

EDIT TO ADD:   FYI–Russian issues
image
Russian news: Kissinger to Obama: Back Away from Russia…

This article originally appeared at ZerohedgeFormer U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger spoke about global threats, the secession of Crimea and Ukraine’s NATO a…
Preview by Yahoo
image
Russian news: Former German Chancellor Schröder: Russ…

BERLIN, December 3. (TASS) – The West made a mistake suggesting that economic sanctions could have altered Russia’s stance on Ukraine, former German Chancell…
Preview by Yahoo
image
Russia in for econ. recession next year

Russia says its economy will be hit with recession next year as a result of slumping oil prices.
Preview by Yahoo
image
Russian news: Don’t Believe the English-Speaking Media, …

John Helmer, a long-serving Russia correspondent from the US, noticed something very important and interesting.This is an excerpt from an article that originally ap…
Preview by Yahoo

Did ISIS Attack Russia?

Quintas Dias 12/04/2014.  I had written a post on what could likely happen in Russia as Obama and Putin faced off over foreign policy differences in Syria, and especially in the Ukraine.  My supposition was that Putin would be attacked on the domestic front by Jihadis, most likely in Chechnya.
Eerily enough that is exactly what happened today, when Islamicist fighters suddenly opened fire on police in gun battles in Grozny.
We know that many Jihadi fighters in Al Qaeda and in ISIS have ties to Jihadis from Chechnya.
As a side note, the Russian counter-terror force had better learn not to bunch up, and to fire from behind cover, and to not stand out in the open.  One RPG scoring a hit on their position in front of that building would have settled their hash instantly not to mention Jidhadis using Dragunov or Mosin sniper rifles firing down at them would have had a field day.
If the Russian intelligence service confirms links between these people and US interests, then look out.

Bang the War Drum Slowly War Clouds on Horizon

Infographic - Distribution of Ethnic Groups Crimea 2001
Distribution of ethnicities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea according to the local 2001 census. Ethnic Russians comprise a majority at 58%. [56] ~ en.wikipedia.org
Quintas Dias.  But bang it nonetheless.  What the rats and dissimulators in the American and European yellow press fail to acknowledge or clarify as that the Ukraine and the Crimea have historically been either Polish, Lithuanian or Russian territory.  The Ukraine and the Crimea has never been old world European territory, and since the 18Th century they have been under Russian influence and domination.
The US and NATO is full of [expletive] in claiming that so-called Russian aggression and expansionism in Europe is now a dagger aimed at the US and old world European states.  What  bullshit!
The Crimea which is at the southern terminus of the Ukrainian land mass was settled and held by the Golden Horde Tartars.  Prior to them, the Greeks, Scythians and Persians held sway.  Russia wrestled the territory away from the Tartars in the late 1700s and it has been Russian territory ever since.
Crimea is very attractive to Tatarstan in terms of investment cooperation, specifically in the sphere of agriculture, tourism ~ http://www.kyivpost.com
Giving it back to the descendants of the Mongols would be like giving North and South Dakota back to the Sioux and the Pawnee.  It is not going to happen.
However, the US and its proxy sock puppet–NATO are loudly making a case of overt Russian aggression in rejoining the people of the Crimea and the Eastern Ukrainians with Russia.
Thus, the question, why does the cabal seek the destruction of Russia and indirectly, China, two of its major former players on the board of covert International Relations and the shaping of the occult New World Order?
The reason is simple.  Russia and China have to be destroyed as does the US, because these three states, each with large, sophisticated populations, rich resources and in possession of advanced weapons can be led to resist the cabal’s globalist elites to halt their singular drive for a Luciferian collectivist world dictatorship.  That is the bottom line.  Once this is accomplished, the cabal will reign supreme.
The cabal’s agents in the US, Russia, and in China are working feverishly to realize this purpose.  It can only be accomplished with a pretext of an immediate threat to US foreign interests, and by manipulating American and world perceptions that Russia and China are mortal-dangers to US national security.
FLASH BACK November 15 2014 Email from Quintas Dias to Group:
Humanity confronts a grim stage now being set for another global war.  In particular, it behooves one to listen to what China says.  McArthur failed to heed Chinese warnings not to approach China’s border with the Yalu river during the Korean war.  The outcome?  Chinese troops attacked McArthur on a wide front and sent his army reeling badly defeated south, back to South Korea.  The gist is that when The Middle Kingdom speaks, it would be wise to listen to the emperor.
There is little doubt that global events under the machination of the Illumines are heading us to another world war.  When leaders of powerful states announce that war is likely and engage in the demonization of rival leaders, and in the political and economic isolation of rival states, you had better look the fuck out.
By the way, the United States has changed a fundamental notion in military strategy.  Instead of waiting for an enemy first strike by nuclear weapons and responding in kind, the United States has declared that it will strike first and that a nuclear war is winnable if certain conditions are met.  This was inconceivable during the Cold War and thus, it limits or eliminates one key element in nuclear politics, the notion of mutually assured destruction that resulted in a balance of power more or less during the Cold War.
Draw your own conclusions.
image
The Ruble Declines, Russian Monetary Breakdown

Welcome to CrushTheStreet.com’s Weekly Market Wrap-up! Our top story of the week is the rapid escalation of volatility in global financial markets, particularly in …
Preview by Yahoo
image
Video: The Roadmap To World War 3: “Playtime Between…

The rhetoric in Russia has been heating up lately with Vladimir Putin recently giving a speech in which he warned that playtime between the East and West is over.
Preview by Yahoo
image
Putin to the Western Elites: World War III Is Inevitable…

In his strongest speech, ever, directed at the United States, in front of the rest of key members of the Western world, Putin drew a line in the sand with regard to…
Preview by Yahoo
 Quintus Dias

Interesting Read | The History and Danger of Administrative Law by Philip Hamburger

P. Bunyan.  I get this publication every month. It is a short and easy read. This one really got me because we all know this is an issue but it really helps me to explain these things to other folks when someone who would seemingly be on their side comes out and explains that what they do is really wrong.  This guy puts it into a nice context and gives some history of it. I really like how he sublimely suggests that today we have a King and not a President.

Enjoy
The following piece by Philip Hamburger is Copyright © 2014 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

September 2014 Imprimis

The History and Danger of Administrative Law

Philip Hamburger
Columbia Law School

PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including theAmerican Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, theNotre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.

In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.

The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?

The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.

But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.

The Prerogative Power of Kings

The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.

Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.

Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.

Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.

These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal,   supra-legal, or consolidated power.

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.

After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.

This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.

The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.

In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.

Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.

One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.

Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.

As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.

The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.

* * *

In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.

Source Link:  http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current

October 13th of 2014.

TX and CDC Mismanages Ebola Outbreak, Fatalities EV68–Updates

Quintas Dias.  Breaking … fatalities reported now with EV68…sources cannot confirm the number.  Range from 2 to 10 so far.   Also EV68 is associated with severe polio like symptoms causing paralysis.  More speculation that EV68 is a bioweapon serving as a test medium to gauge Ebola impact in the US  Thirty seven states and Canada report EV68 cases.This is criminal negligence of the highest order.  Who in their right mind would allow this?

CDC and Texas Officials Allow Ebola to Spread in Dallas

Child with Enterovirus 68 dies in Rhode Island – 4 more deaths possibly linked to outbreak

image
CDC and Texas Officials Allow Ebola to Spread in Dallas

Officialdom will not quarantine people who came in contact with Ebola patient.
Preview by Yahoo
Have to agree with this.  Bummer(and Congress) is still not taking decisive action to limit harms.  He could prohibit landing rights to carriers inbound from the African hot zone and for careful checks of passengers bound for US destinations.  It is simply amazing noting just how incompetent Bummer and his minions really are.  Incompetency and criminal negligence is one thing, but we are seeing this time and time again, which leads to ugly thoughts of conspiracy.  And that goes for that Texas grease ball POS, Rick Perry.  The two-faced sonofabitch plays both sides of the fence.
In addition to the disease crisis, we now have the Border Patrol pulling out of the Texas crisis zone, leaving local police struggling on their own.  The border and its security is a primary FEDERAL SECURITY issue and not that of the states’.  Still no word on what the US military is doing down on the border other than playing golf and hiding in Ft Bliss.  Yeah, in case you didn’t know they locked down Bliss because of the ISIS threat from Juarez to El Paso, TX.
What gets me, as I said before the US Army deployed to the Mex border in 1911 to contend with the Revolution in Mexico, to offset bandit raids, and gun running to Mexico by American criminals.  The army performed masterfully in coping with the huge refugee flows from war stricken  Mexico.  Over a million impoverished and wretched Mexican refugees fled to the US to escape the devastation of the Revolution, the first large scale social revolution of the 20Th century and one of the bloodiest ever.
They set up refugee camps by points of entry, clinics, and quarantine zones.  Any Mexican refugee before being allowed in was met by Army medical corps personnel.  They were deloused, bathed in Kerosene and their clothing was burned on the spot.  If anyone displayed any infectious disease symptoms they were remanded to a Q zone.  They were provided medical care, food and shelter.  Many sympathetic Texans helped the army out with the refugees. War torn Mexico was devastated by malaria and typhoid outbreaks.  Not one serious case was ever reported inside the US.  They were not allowed to disperse and kept in two main locations, TX and NM.
If our forefathers and the Army of the day operating with far more primitive equipment and less resources could handle a major humanitarian crisis then it begs the question.  Why cannot bummer and his shills do the same?

FOX News: Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal | CitizensNewswire

Kirk MacKenzie

8:48 AM (26 minutes ago)

to Citizens
I thought you might be interested in this article: Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal.
Kirk MacKenzie

www.DefendRuralAmerica.com

Sent from my iPhone

__________________________________________________
Administrator: Kirk@SilentNoMorePublications.com
http://www.DefendRuralAmerica.com