Origins of the U.S. Kudzu-esque Administrative State

What in the hell has happened to our unalienable rights of life, liberty and property?  What happened to the federalist principles of self-government established in our Constitution?  In today’s America, those unassailable rights are permissible on conditions set forth by federal government bureaucrats and judges.  This isn’t the America of our Founders.  Hell this isn’t America, period.

The Obama administration exposed the hard reality that we aren’t the country we thought we were.  We’ve been slowly transforming into a European socialist welfare state and it’s been going on for a long time.

An article published in Powerline revealed just how this kudzu-like administrative state has grown by spreading its vines into the very fabric of American culture, and as you can expect, this ideology was nurtured in greenhouses of higher learning.  Here is an excerpt:

Studying administrative law in law school, I don’t think we read anything that raised questions about the legitimacy of the agencies giving rise to to it. We took it as a given and picked up the story with the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. We should have taken a look at the question of legitimacy in constitutional law, and probably did, though the standard New Deal account I would have received is extremely misleading.

 Exercising executive, legislative and judicial powers, the agencies are a constitutional anomaly. When it comes to a government of limited powers based on the powers allocated and divided among the three branches, the administrative agencies don’t really fit. I am honor bound to add that the Supreme Court doesn’t quite see things my way, although Douglas Ginsburg spells out elementary principles (and cites some relevant case law) in “Legislative powers: Not yours to give away.”

The origins of the American administrative state began in 1857 when Columbia University hired Francis Lieber, a German immigrant, to teach a new discipline called “political science.”  His successor was another imported German, John William Burgess, who indoctrinated a whole generation of Americans into the “virtues” of administrative sciences including Woodrow Wilson.  This new philosophy is alien to American self-governance.   Here is an excerpt from Living Constitution, Dying Faith:

The birth of American political science created a bastion within the academy for the view that perpetual societal improvement is possible and inevitable, partly because of evolutionary unfolding, but partly with the aid of the right kind of superintendence.   The institutional and theoretical departures implied by this view would have made the new political science unrecognizable to the American Founders, whose “new science of politics” had almost nothing in common with it.  It was certainly the case that the new political science, in its dismissive contempt for traditional political philosophy, and unchanging principles of political right, and ideas and institutions from prior centuries, turned its back on the Founders.  For the most part, it still does.  American political science therefore remains almost genetically incapable of understanding the Constitution of the fathers.

So there it is.  Americans have been indoctrinated into accepting an administrative state that is outright hostile to our very essence.  And now that we’re confronted with a kudzu-esque bureaucracy, citizens are beginning to wonder if we have any recourse before we are completely subsumed by this foreign entity.

  Source:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/understanding-the-administrative-state.php

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Constitution-Dying-Faith-Progressivism/dp/1933859709

Does the U.S. Constitution Still Have Standing?

Americans have a come to Jesus moment.  Are we a constitutional republic, or not?  Are we giving lip service to a federalist system, or, are we to be ruled by an all powerful central government?  It seems we’ve opted for the latter.

Time after time, we’ve watched Congress flail about while the Obama administration flouts the federal bureaucracy by enacting rules and regulations without recourse.  Recently, the FCC declared the internet a public utility without the required 30 day public comment period.  Isn’t that similar to how this whole Obamacare fiasco came about?  Does anyone remember Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, “We need to pass it, so everyone can see what’s in it.”

These bureaucracies shouldn’t have the ability to create rules and regulations that have the force of law.  The U.S. Constitution specifically states that only Congress has legislative powers.  However, this same body abdicated their responsibilities by enabling federal bureaucrats with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.

Can Congress overturn a bureaucratic rule and regulation?  Sure, they can.  The Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996.  Congress granted itself the ability, with permission from President Bill Clinton, to overturn a bureaucratic edict.  Here is how Wikipedia described the law:

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. § 801-808), was enacted by the United States Congress as section 251 of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–121), also known as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The law allows Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, to overrule a regulation.^[1]

For the regulation to be invalidated, the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the President, or must be passed over the President's veto by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress.^[2]

Isn’t that delicious?  The Constitution states that Congress can override a presidential veto on one of their bills by that same margin.  So, basically, a fourth branch of government has as much power, if not more, as Congress.  Isn’t that interesting?  In other words, it’s almost impossible for Congress to override a federal bureaucracy’s regulation.

The deck is even more stacked now that progressives rule the judiciary.  Liberal judges can flippantly strike down a state’s constitution, or law, by simply declaring it violates the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment.  They do this by establishing precedence, and eventually, their rulings no longer reflect original intent of the law.

Another progressive favorite is declaring the plaintiff has no standing.  It’s no longer fashionable to ponder the legality, or for that fact, the constitutionality of a law, such as Obamacare.  Now, judges demand one must show irreparable harm.  How convenient is that?  Here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg article:

 Yet if it’s possible to deduce from the record that the plaintiffs qualify for hardship exemptions from paying for insurance, then it’s within the court’s prerogative to consider the issue. The reason is tricky but interesting. Under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, an “injury in fact” is a constitutionally necessary prerequisite for the court to hear a case. If there’s no such injury, there’s no “case or controversy” that the court would be entitled to hear under the Constitution. Therefore, the court has held, the question of standing is what’s called “jurisdictional” – and such a jurisdictional question can be raised by the court even if the parties never mention the problem.

Must the court address the question of standing? Here things get murkier. In theory, if the court knows it doesn’t have standing, it lacks the power to proceed. In practice, the court sometimes hears cases where, in retrospect, standing seems not to have existed.

Does the Constitution still have standing?  Not in the Age of Obama.

  

 Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*P%5C_%3D%22P%20%20%0A

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article11164557.html

Government Bureaucrats Shield Unscrupulous Politicians

When historians reflect upon the Age of Obama, they’ll note this was the era of federal bureaucrats.  They’ll state this president flaunted the administrative state like no other before; that it became self-evident that all three branches established and reaffirmed a fourth arm of government, and gave it the power to create and adjudicate its own rules, in fact circumventing the legislative process outlined in our Constitution.

This was cleverly done by politicians, who didn’t want to vote on controversial subjects, and have to face the wrath of their constituents.  What better way to implement laws that advance statism than a nameless and faceless bureaucrat, while at the same time, giving a politician a platform to rail against policies he secretively advocates.  One would say this form of government is un-American.  As a matter of fact it is! 

President Woodrow Wilson was a great advocate for the administrative state.  He was a proud elitist who resented the “little people” who criticized his genius.  Wilson had a disdain for the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  He believed in Darwinian principles of societal evolution.  Progress became a dog whistle for a powerful centralized government and its legion of specialized bureaucrats.  This model of scientific administration Wilson admired was crafted by Europeans:

But where has this science grown up? Surely not on this side of the sea….American writers have hitherto taken no very important part in the advancement of this science. It has found its doctors in Europe. It is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principles….It has been developed by French and German professors.

Nazi Germany demonstrated how efficient and innovative a motivated government bureaucrat can be.  I watched a documentary on how the German people were kept in the dark on Hitler’s “Final Solution.”  Politicians didn’t want to get their hands dirty when it came to murder.  Even the Nazis were subject to public opinion.  So, with trial and error, they surreptitiously expelled Germanic Jews to concentration camps, all the while assuring their neighbors they were being sent to a better place.

And the role of the judiciary

It was the administrative state that collected data, confiscated property, transported, housed, and eventually murdered millions of Jews.  You will be hard pressed to find Adolf Hitler’s signature affixed to any document authorizing or acknowledging the “Final Solution.”  Bureaucrats shielded the Fuehrer as much as possible for plausible deniability.

The administrative state is designed to give plausible deniability to ambitious and deceitful politicians.  So far, under the Obama presidency, over 21,000 regulations have been implemented with an additional 2,375 scheduled for the year 2015.  And, of course, all this is being done with the clap and thunder of congressional outrage and grandstanding by our elected representatives.

    

Source:

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-administration-flourishes-under.html

http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/hitlerorder.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-21000-regulations-so-far-under-obama-2375-set-for-2015/article/2558050

Obama Admin Funds Executive Orders Through Fees and Penalties

How can the U.S. Congress make itself irrelevant?  Let’s count the ways.   The Constitution specifically dictates legislative powers are exclusively granted to this branch of government.  Yet, Congress creates agencies and confers upon them regulatory powers that have the force of law, therein bypassing the legislative process.  This was deliberately done with passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.

Under Article One, Section Seven all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.  This was done to ensure our representatives, and by extension the citizens of this country, had control over policies by using the power of the purse.  Yet, Congress conferred upon these federal agencies the ability to create, implement and collect fees and penalties, in effect, funding itself without having to go to Congress with hat in hand.

The Obama administration has mastered exploiting federal agencies in pursuit of its radical agenda.  The president’s immigration policies do not have Congresses approval, which by the way, is dictated under Article One, Section Eight.  These totalitarians openly brag that they don’t need funding from Congress.  They will get all the money they need from collecting fees from illegal aliens.  The Washington Examiner reported the following:

The Obama administration is spending nearly $50 million to hire and house 1,000 new federal workers to process immigration cases after President Obama announced that he would unilaterally protect up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

The Citizenship and Immigration Services agency will devote $40 million to annual salaries and almost $8 million a year to the lease of a new building just outside Washington, in which employees will review the claims of illegal immigrants who apply for newly protected status, according to the New York Times.

In recent weeks, critics have warned that Obama’s executive action would further increase the federal bureaucracy, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the expansion of immigration services

“They are in the process of hiring 1,000 full-time staff to quickly approve applications for the president’s illegal amnesty, which will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security and Medicare to illegal immigrants — all benefits rejected by Congress,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said earlier this month. “This action will mean that American workers, their sons, their daughters, their parents, will now have to compete directly for jobs, wages, and benefits with millions of illegal immigrants.”

The Obama administration counters that the fees recouped through the president’s executive action eventually will cover the cost of the new federal workers

Congress needs to take power away from these federal agencies.  They can start by passing a law mandating all fees and penalties are to go into the general fund.  This will help ensure these government entities do not abuse their powers by imposing punitive fees upon a hapless citizenry as a means for funding, and will give power of the purse back to Congress where it belongs.

Source:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds-spending-50m-on-immigration-workers/article/2557878?utm_content=bufferd4edd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Administrative+Procedure+Act+of+1946

U.S. Embarks on Age of Rulers

The United States is about to embark on an age of rulers.  That is the stark assessment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).  Indeed, today’s democrats are crying for an imperial president to disregard the rule of law and our Constitution.  The Obama administration has heard their cries and have harassed political opponents and is now about to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who have the same third world mentality as their advocates.

Progressives from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama have had an utter contempt for our founding principles and our federalist system that binds them.  They want a robust executive and they sure as hell don’t want a legislative or judicial branch to impede their progress.

Woodrow Wilson wrote extensively about an administrative state.  Even he conceded that his progressive ideals were contrary to our founding:

But where has this science grown up? Surely not on this side of the sea….American writers have hitherto taken no very important part in the advancement of this science. It has found its doctors in Europe. It is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principles….It has been developed by French and German professors

Indeed, progressives were so enamored with this new form of governance they passed the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.  This law allowed bureaucracies the ability to create and adjudicate regulations without consent from Congress.  They practically made themselves irrelevant.

The logical progression in this world of progressives is an imperial president.  The United States is about to embark on an age of rulers.  I’m sure that will make all these Latin American illegal aliens feel right at home.

Source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-administration-flourishes-under.html

Should Red States Form a NATO-esque Alliance?

A government of the people, by the people and for the people.  That is a lofty sentiment.  Abraham Lincoln was a rhetorical genius.  He wrote of a higher ideal of government, while at the same time, invading his neighbors, shutting down newspapers, jailing and exiling dissenters, not to mention engaging in crony capitalism.  The Great Emancipator indeed.

The War of Northern Aggression was the beginning of the end of federalism.  Before this calamity, states were considered ones country.  Politicians before that era would resign from their D.C. elected office to become senators and representatives in their state’s legislature.  Now, it’s the other way around.  Washington D.C. has become the epicenter of American life.  No one can escape that cesspools legion of laws, rules, regulations, onerous taxes and penalties.

The Anti-Federalists were prophetic.  They warned us that this central government with its three branches would conspire to consolidate power at the expense of states and the liberty of its citizens.  They could not have been more right.  These founding fathers tried to protect us by demanding a Bill of Rights.  Those rights were designed as a firewall.  But, like everything else, the totalitarians have bastardized it.

These masters of American citizens depend upon our faith and fidelity to their laws, rules, regulations, onerous taxes and penalties.  Without our compliance they are nothing, hence, the diminishment of self-government and determination.

 

How can we fight back?  We could call for an Article V constitutional convention specifically designed to enforce our founding principles.  That means abolishing the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act, 17^th Amendment, 16^th Amendment, and more importantly the cudgel of activist federal judges: the 14^th Amendment.

Another way to fight back is to call for a NATO-esque alliance between red states.  An attack on one is attack on all.  States’ must reject their vassalage mentality.  It was the states that created this federal government, not the other way around.  This is the United States of America, not the Federal Government of America.

Sooner or later, something has to be done.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Either we are free, or totalitarian.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Ken Burns Mollycoddles "The Roosevelts"

Last week, PBS featured a Ken Burns documentary entitled, “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.”  This film is the hagiography I expected it to be, despite the film maker’s reassurances on the Diane Rehm’s Show.  There were a few exceptions of tepid criticism, George Will comes to mind, other than that, this was the same old Roosevelt sermon.

We’ve all heard the progressive gospels before.  FDR saved capitalism from itself.  FDR was a traitor to his class.  What a load of crap.  Had Ken Burns sought out economists critical of the New Deal, the audience would have had a different perspective. There is a reason why we call it the Great Depression, and it had everything to do with FDR’s fiscal policies.  The true mantra should be, “Capitalism survived FDR.”  Academia, on the other hand, did not.  The historians and professors that littered this documentary are a testament to that.

FDR was not a traitor to his class.  He was a product of his class.  Vanderbilt dominated the transportation industry.  Rockefeller was a titan in the oil industry.  Carnegie forged the steel industry.  These men dominated their field with ruthless zeal.  They didn’t tolerate competition.  They sought to destroy it.  The Roosevelts were no different.

FDR was a failure in every business venture he attempted.  He eventually found his calling: government.  And like his cousin, Theodore, he couldn’t care less about the U.S. Constitution.  Both thought it a hindrance and an obstacle.  The Roosevelts were arrogant patricians.  They disguised their ambitions through the sufferings of the American people.  Power was their product.  Anyone not in government was their competition.

 

We can thank the Roosevelts for America’s bureaucratic state.  It started with T.R. and the Hepburn Act and escalated with the New Deal.  The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act was a futile attempt by Congress to control all these government agencies.  Instead, they aided and abetted this monster.

The Roosevelts are a curse to this country and its founding ideals.  Americans must repudiate this cursed family, or we will be ruled by fascist, like the ones FDR's administration admired.

Source:  http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/

What's Better, Germany's 1933 Enabling Act or U.S. 1946 Administrative Procedure Act?

The biggest threat to a republic is centralized power.  Washington D.C. has been on that quest since its inception.  The Supreme Court, under Marbury v. Madison, granted itself judicial review.  Nowhere in the Constitution do these powers exist.  They just took it and no one challenged them.  Gradually, the federal courts used precedent over principles to dictate policy and stomp on States’ self-determination.

If that’s not bad enough, Congress delegated its constitutionally mandated power to legislate.  The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act consolidated regulatory agencies under the executive branch.  This law granted unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats rule making and adjudicating powers.  Under an unprincipled and contemptuous president, such as Barack Obama, these agencies have been used to bypass the legislative process; not to mention violate the principles of separation of powers.

 Here is how President Obama has handled the regulation state during his tenure:

The analysis by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency that monitors the government’s rule-making process, found that regulatory delays at OIRA spiked in 2012 as the administration put controversial rules on hold until after the election.

But the same can’t be said this time around with the congressional midterms approaching in November, observers say.

“I don’t think the Obama administration is willfully delaying regulations right now — at least not for the benefit of members of Congress running in November,” said Sam Batkins, regulatory director at the conservative American Action Forum.

OIRA is currently reviewing 24 rules and has already completed reviews of another 70 rules, putting the agency on pace to cycle through close to 125 rules by the end of the year.

Some say the tempo of regulations points to a schism between President Obama, who is focused on carving his legacy in Washington before his term expires in two years, and congressional Democrats, who are consumed with keeping control of the Senate. 

“There is certainly a cost from President Obama’s point of view to slowing down the amount of regulations,” said James Gattuso, who studies regulations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “I don’t see any reason why he would want to do that.”

Shapiro, the former OIRA official, suggested President Obama has “less incentive” to protect Senate Democrats this time around than he had to protect himself during the 2012 campaign.

That’s because Obama doesn’t need Congress to push through his agenda.  He has federal bureaucracies to do his dirty work.

The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act was created to ensure a 4^th branch of government didn’t exist.  But putting it under the executive branch ensures dictatorial powers.  I’m reminded of Germany’s Enabling Act of 1933.  Hitler praised this legislation:

Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag.

He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act.

A two thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the German constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.

However, one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

This enraged Hitler and he jumped up to respond.

"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.

They achieved what Hitler had wanted for years - to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

Let’s see, Germany's Enabling Act or our 1946 Administrative Procedure Act.  How does that song go?  Potato…potato…

Source: http://thehill.com/regulation/pending-regs/215809-obama-hits-the-gas-on-regs#ixzz3BS9mcPTc 

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Administrative+Procedure+Act+of+1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act

Federal Bureaucracies Have Become Monsters

What can Americans do when their elected representatives abdicate their constitutional responsibilities to unelected and unaccountable federal government bureaucrats?  The whole premise of the American Revolution was based on no taxation without representation.  Now, we have punitive rules and regulations that cost Americans $1.86 trillion a year.  These costs are bigger than all of the economies in the world except nine.  And they do it without our consent.

Congress created this monster with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.  And with all monsters, the more powerful they become the more contempt they have for their creators.  We are witnessing this horror story play out before our very eyes. 

House republicans have been trying to get information from these little Frankensteins with little success.  It doesn’t help when these “public servants” invoke the Fifth Amendment, or promise to hand over documents with the intention of never following through.  And what does Congress do?  They stamp their feet and threaten to hold these monsters in contempt.  The only ones who are being held in contempt are the American people and our elected representatives.

Source: http://news.investors.com/042914-698787-regulatory-economy-booms-under-president-obama.htm

Dissolution of the American Creed

The world is witnessing a wave of secession movements.  Eyes are currently on the Crimean Peninsula.  Its majority Russian speaking residents voted in referendum to come home to mother bear.  This movement first started after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  Those in the know weren’t surprised when this began to happen.  That’s why the Obama administration looks like a bunch of incredulous fools.

Scotland is also in the process of seceding from the United Kingdom, along with Catalonia from Spain.  But the big surprise is Venice.  It seems they and their northern brethren are tired of Rome’s fiscal mismanagement: 

For decades there has been deep-seated dissatisfaction in the rich northern regions of Italy with what is widely regarded as inefficient and venal rule from Rome, as well as resentment that hard-won tax revenues are sent south and often squandered.

About 3.8 million people in Veneto are eligible to vote. Campaigners want a future state to be known as Repubblica Veneta — the Republic of Veneto.

They acknowledge that the vote is not binding on the national government in Rome and could cause a big constitutional upheaval, but insist that if it passes, they will start taking steps to withhold taxes, in what would effectively be a unilateral declaration of independence.

“If there is a majority yes vote, we have scholars drawing up a declaration of independence and there are businesses in the region who say they will begin paying taxes to local authorities instead of to Rome,” Lodovico Pizzati, the spokesman for the independence movement, told The Daily Telegraph.

Will the United States witness another secessionist movement?  We have just as much to complaint about as the aforementioned.  I would say even more.  Our founding principles and Constitution have been forsaken.  And it all started with the Civil War.

When the South seceded from the Union, Northern aggressors violated the tenets of the Declaration of Independents.  That was the first salvo of dismantling our founding principles.  Yes, slavery – an evil institution, was a factor in the South’s contention for parting ways, but so was the mercantile policies of Washington D.C.

The South first threatened to secede during President Andrew Jackson’s tenure due to unfair trade practices.  He squashed that movement in its cradle.  Vice President John C. Calhoun and South Carolina trembled from fear of Old Hickory.  Everyone knew Jackson meant business, unlike our current president.

War eventually came and the South lost.  And despite the crimes of Northern occupiers, who raped, murdered and pillaged the vanquished, the country coalesced around a common core of culture, language, God and the principles established in our Constitution.  Those tenets are the pillars of our prosperity.  Progressives have been on a mission for over the past 100 years to topple them.  Here are a few their initiatives:

The 14^th Amendment allowed the federal judiciary to impose its will upon the States in violation of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

The 16^th Amendment allowed the federal government to extort States with “free money” and punish them if they don’t comply.

The 17^th Amendment excluded States’ legislatures from the political process in shaping federal law.

Then Congress made themselves irrelevant with the advent of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act, now we have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats imposing rules and regulations without our consent.  This is a complete violation of separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution. 

The systematic dismantling of our founding principles is enough to ensure the dissolution of the United States.  But the Progressives aren’t satisfied with that.  They have embarked on an even more destructive path, and that is dividing the population into squabbling subset groups vying for political advantage.  So much for E pluribus Unum.  Progressives laugh at the notion.

Source:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/15/more-sovereignty-votes-sunday-referendum-may-see-venice-elect-to-secede-from-italy/

The IRS is Codifying the Abridgment of Conservative Free Speech Rights

The Anti-Federalist was prophetic in their warnings of an all-powerful, centralized government.  They tried to protect the states and their citizens by demanding a bill of rights.  This singular promise ensured the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

What many of the delegates didn’t see coming was an abdication by future Congresses of their Article One, Section One responsibilities.   The passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act granted bureaucratic entities the ability to implement rules and regulations, along with adjudicating powers.  All are under the oversight of the executive branch.  You’d think that this would be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court is also complicit in this violation of separation of powers.

Since Congress abdicated their legislative responsibilities to an unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucracy, we are witnessing an outright violation of our First Amendment rights by these entities, two of those tenets being freedom of speech and religion.  Back in 1894, the federal government violated both by using the tax code to silence opposition even though the very first of amendments begins with, Congress shall make no laws regarding…

US churches' federal income tax exemption was not formerly enacted as legislation until the Tariff Act was passed by Congress in 1894, providing tax exemptions to "corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes." [51] This was the first time the federal government declared any group exempt from paying taxes, as opposed to its earlier practice of only listing entities subject to taxation. [38] Although the Tariff Act was declared unconstitutional in 1896, the church tax exemption was reinstated by the Revenue Act of 1913, which defined the modern American income tax system. [45] [46] On Jan. 14, 1924, the US Supreme Court interpreted the reason for the exemption in Trinidad v. Sagrada Orden: "Evidently the exemption is made in recognition of the benefit which the public derives" from churches' "corporate activities." [47]

The IRS has been exposed for harassing Tea Party organizations.  Even though there has been an acknowledgement of wrong doing, these modern day oprichniki are codifying the exclusion of conservative organizations from participating in the political process.  And what is Congress doing about this?  Nothing.  After all, Tea Partiers are the bane of both Democrats and the Republican establishment.  Besides, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.  Nothing is mentioned about unelected bureaucrats violating our God given rights.

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/moderate-republicans-team-up-with-labor-unions-to-defeat-the-tea-party-in-2014/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/email-irss-lerner-treasury-department-secretly-drafted-new-rules-to-restrict-nonprofits/

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/04/progressives-muzzle-churches-through.html

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2013/11/democrats-scheme-to-advance.html

http://epic.org/open_gov/Administrative-Procedure-Act.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/11/camp-irs-targeted-conservative-groups-for-audits/

The Washington D.C. Menace

The assault on liberty, property, prosperity and conscience from a centralized government is a very real threat.  The premise of a limited government as defined in our Constitution has been trash canned.  The States have been turned into vassalages and citizenship is mocked and spurned.

Washington D.C. has become a menace.  Unelected bureaucrats are running roughshod over our rights, while federal judges affirm their power grab.  All three branches of government have colluded to enslave the American people.  The next step is President Obama exercising dictatorial powers by issuing executive orders.   We have progressive politicians demanding he do so, especially when it comes to granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

But the president has found other ways to circumvent the legislative process.  He is appointing activist in the federal bureaucracies to spearhead his progressive agenda.  One such example is his stacking Homeland Security with open borders attorneys that will openly work against immigration laws.  What we have is a rot from within. And this is only one example.

There is hope.  The American people are beginning to wake up.  A recent Gallop Poll has shown that 72% of those participating believe the federal government is a threat.  Once we recognize the problem, we can begin to address it.  And one of the ways to defang this monster is to abolish their army of bureaucrats.  We must repeal the law that unleashed this unholy authoritarian hell.  We must repeal the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.

Source:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/166535/record-high-say-big-government-greatest-threat.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/12/06/obama-stacking-department-of-homeland-security-with-pro-open-borders-amnesty-advocates/

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Administrative+Procedure+Act+of+1946

Democrats Scheme to Advance Administrative State

Senate Democrats pulled the nuclear option earlier this week.  They are fully aware that the American people have caught onto their shenanigans.  Barack Obama is officially a lame duck and the Republicans have a chance to win the Senate.  The Democrats need a failsafe plan that will further their socialist ideology without having to go through the legislative process.  They need the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to rubber stamp Obama’s administrative state.

The progressives for over a hundred years schemed to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.  They needed a way to bypass Congress.  They needed federal bureaucracies that can act independent of the legislative process.  They need an administrative state.  President Woodrow Wilson gave them a vision even he admitted is alien to the American people:

But where has this science grown up? Surely not on this side of the sea….American writers have hitherto taken no very important part in the advancement of this science. It has found its doctors in Europe. It is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principles….It has been developed by French and German professors.

Many are asking what law allowed the executive branch to accumulate all this power while abrogating Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.  It is called the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.

This law gave federal agencies a free hand in writing, implementing and enforcing rules and regulations.  They can do this with little input from the general public or our representatives.

In 1947, the department of justice issued the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act. This document provides insight regarding the application of the act and remains valuable as a research tool to this day. Some of the information contained in this manual provides analysis that the courts have not yet considered.

The purpose of the APA is to provide minimum procedural standards that federal administrative agencies must follow. It distinguishes between two major forms of administrative functions: agency rulemaking and agency adjudication. Administrative rulemaking is analogous to the legislative acts, while an administrative adjudication is analogous to a judicial decision. This distinction contained in the APA has long been the subject of scholarly debate. Some argue that such a dichotomy is unnecessarily rigid and that it might not always allow for the most appropriate procedures for a particular agency. Supporters of the distinction between rulemaking and adjudication contained in the APA note that this distinction best represents the basic functions of administrative agencies.

The rulemaking provisions of the APA are more detailed than those governing adjudications. Most agencies engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking, which is required as the minimum rulemaking procedure under the APA. Under notice-and-comment rulemaking, agencies are required to give the public advance notice of the contents of proposed rule and to offer the public an opportunity to express their views of the proposed rule before the agency. Some agencies are required by the statutes that created them to follow more stringent standards, whereby all of the agency's actions during rulemaking are conducted "on the record." This latter type of rulemaking is known as formal rulemaking.

The APA defines and governs only those types of adjudications that are required by statute to be conducted "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing." If an agency is required to conduct such a formal adjudication under the APA, it must engage in a proceeding resembling a trial. However, if the agency is not required to conduct such a hearing, the APA remains silent. Accordingly, an agency may adopt its own procedure for an informal adjudication, so long as the agency otherwise does not violate the U.S. Constitution or other law.

I contend that the Administrative Procedures Act is unconstitutional.  It violates Article One, Section One, and our constitutional concept of separation of powers.  But as we’ve seen, the progressives only need a compliant judge to implement their vision of the United States even if it’s against the will of the people.

Source:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/politics/senate-nuclear-option-5-things/

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-administration-flourishes-under.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Administrative+Procedure+Act+of+1946