Are we in the Midst of a Color Revolution?

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats lost in November and now they are protesting, thinking, perhaps, that that will cow the voters who voted for Donald J Trump, and cow the President Himself.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The liberals’ license:  How the left finds release in an age of rage

From The Hill, by Professor Jonathan Turley, 5 April 2025, 10:30 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

“We should replace our piece of crap Constitution.”

Those words from author Elie Mystal, a regular commentator on MSNBC, are hardly surprising from someone who previously called the Constitution “trash” and urged not just the abolition of the U.S. Senate but also of “all voter registration laws.”

But Mystal’s radical rhetoric is becoming mainstream on the left, as shown by his best-selling books and popular media appearances.

There is a counter-constitutional movement building in law schools and across the country. And although Mystal has not advocated violence, some on the left are turning to political violence and criminal acts. It is part of the “righteous rage” that many of them see as absolving them from the basic demands not only of civility but of legality.

They are part of a rising class of American Jacobins — bourgeois revolutionaries increasingly prepared to trash everything, from cars to the Constitution.

Jacobins:

Commonly known as the Jacobin Club (Club des Jacobins) or simply the Jacobins (/ˈdʒækəbɪnz/; French: [ʒakɔbɛ̃]), was the most influential political club during the French Revolution of 1789. The period of its political ascendancy includes the Reign of Terror, during which well over 10,000 people were put on trial and executed in France, many for "political crimes".[3][4]

The author, Elie Mystal, is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  One wonders, some times, what exactly they are teaching down county.

Am I going to have to read Mr Mystal's book to understand if he even has something to reploce our current controlling document.  I grant the Constitution is not perfect, and in the beginning had compromises to get each of the thirteen states on board.  On the other hand, it has worked to provide a certain degree of prosperity for a large portion of the population and opportunity for the rest.

Yet, we see people burning Tesla vehicles and attacking dealterships.  In Lowell we have had a Tesla shot on the street.  Now, on Saturday we had demonstrations trying to reverse the results of the November past election.  Do we all still live in a Democracy?  Time will tell.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Courts Begin to Awaken

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats are battling President Trump by employing law suits.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge leaves intact a ban on DOGE access to Treasury records pending a hearing Friday

From the Associated Press, by Reporter Larry Neumeister, 11 February 2025 at 1:50 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus four:

A federal judge on Tuesday made some clarifications but left intact a ban for now that prevents Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department records containing sensitive personal data for millions of Americans.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in Manhattan issued an order to continue a ban prior to a hearing Friday. The ban was put in place last week by another federal New York jurist in response to a lawsuit that 19 Democratic attorneys general brought against President Donald Trump.

Justice Department attorneys told Vargas in a filing on Sunday that the ban was unconstitutional and needed to be immediately reversed.

They made additional arguments in a written submission on Tuesday, saying the ban limits Trump's “ability to give direction to his subordinates” to ensure that annual outlays of $5 trillion by Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service are being handled with efficiency.

Vargas made changes to the ban to clarify its reach. For instance, she said Treasury Department officers nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate can access the records, making it clear that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is not subject to the ban.

This is a step in the proper direction by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, allowing the Secretry of Treasury Scott Bessent to actually manage his department, a job for which he was confirmed by the US Senate.  The idea that a Cabinet Secretary was not allowed ot manage the civil Servants within his or her department, or manage the systems therein makes a sham of the job of management and responsibility.

While Friday may bring further clarity and common sense, I fear it will require the involvement of the US Supreme Court.

Hat tip to the Citizen Free Press.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Bureaucrats vs the Elected Officials

For John, BLUF:  Some believe that the Federal Bureaucracy has aa block of officials who aree dedicated to resisting the Administration of President Donald Trump, Version 2.0.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftist Ideologues Dominating the Federal Civil Service Have Created a New Version of the Spoils System

From PJ Media, by Mark Tapscott, 17 January 2025, 7:07 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

This won't shock anybody who served time working in the government bureaucracy, but the biggest obstacle facing President-elect Donald Trump likely isn't the Elite Media or the Deep State, but rather the management ranks of the career federal civil service.

"Wait a minute, Tapscott," you may be muttering. "Are you telling us that nameless, faceless bureaucrats are going to be more powerful and influential in blocking Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda than the 'journalists' at ABC/CBS/NBC/New York Times/Washington Post and the political plumbers of the Intelligence Community?"

Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and Exhibit A here is a recent survey conducted for the Napolitan Institute by RMG Research of 500 federal civil service managers being paid at least $75,000 and living in the Washington, D.C., region.

Like myself, the author comes from a family of Federal Bureaucrats, he more in depth and my more in breadth.  But, like me, he wonders if the gains from the Pendleton Act of 1883 are beeing sustaijned or perverted.  As we recall, a merit based Civil Service was introduced because of the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881, by a disappointed office seeker.

Today we have an entrenched Civil Service which seems, in part, to see itself as the fourth branch of government (the Fourth Estate, pushing aside the Press), responsible for protecting the Government from the actions of Congress and the President, and the Supreme Court.  They are the Technocrats running the Administrative State.

A survey of 500 federal civil service managers being paid at least $75,000 and living in the Washington, DC, region, by RMG Research for the Napolitan Institute, found "42% of those federal managers surveyed declared their intent to either strongly oppose or oppose Trump once he is sworn in and back in the Oval Office".  That does not strike me as show a Democracy should work.  That is surrendering control of our lives to self-prepetuating Administrators.

But, on the bright side:

44%, said they would either strongly support or support Trump's agenda.  But then we read that among the federal managers who identified themselves as Democrats, two-thirds said they would actively oppose orders advancing Trump policies.

But, most revolutions are brought about by a small group with the belief that they are correct and the vast majority is either wrong or clueless.  Revolutions are brought about by groups less that 40% of the population.

If you are an anti-Trumper and you are counting on the Bureaucracy to control President Trump you are showing Fascist tendencies.  What you should have done was work harder to see Candidate Kamala Harris elected.  What you did was not sufficient.  You failed.

The negative attitude toward Bureaucrats and a Bureaucratic State were expressed Friday by Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT).  He noted "This Country Was Not Founded by 65-Year-Old Bureaucrats".  Granted, Ben Franklin was 70 years old when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, but the writer was Thomas Jefferson, at 33.

There is an importance place in our system for a meritocratic professional Civil Service.  But, they are there to implement the laws as passed by Congress and administered by the Elected President.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

How You Score DJT

For John, BLUF:  Is this the "October Surprise" of the 2024 Election Season?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump's former chief of staff called him a 'fascist.' Harris is campaigning on that

From NPR, by Reporter Ximena Bustillo, 23 October 2024, 1:53 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus two:

Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, who was former President Donald Trump‘s longest-serving chief of staff, called Trump’s leadership style “dictatorial,” “fascist” and lacking empathy in new interviews this week.

Now Vice President Harris — who is trying to peel off moderate Republican voters and independents in key swing states — is seizing on those warnings to bolster her argument that her opponent is a threat to democracy and too dangerous to hold the office.

Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies "So the bottom line is this, we know what Donald Trump wants — he wants unchecked power. The question, in 13 days, will be what do the American people want?" Harris said, referring to Election Day on Nov. 5.

I want to switch this up because I am not sure I understand how Progressives view “fascism”. I distinctly remember some woman being interviewed on NPR saying, about Mao, and the Great Leap Forward, that to "Make an Omlet you have to break some eggs."  Really?

Anyway, I ask each of you to tell me where, on this spectrum, you put Candidate Donald J Trump in terms of his fascism.

1. Woodrow Wilson (New Jersey)
2. António Salazar (Portugal)
3. Francisco Franco (Spain)
4. Benito Mussolini (Italy)
5. Adolf Hitler (Germany)
6. Joseph Stalin (Russia)
7. Mao Zedung (China)
8. Pol Pot (Cambodia)

In thinking about this, keep in mind that in Italy Carlo Levi survived WWII to write a book, but, in the Netherlands Anne Frank did not survive WWII, to allow her to edit her diaries.  The Ukrainians probably have yet to forgive Russia for the Holodomor.  While I have forgiven The Old Gray Lady and Walter Duranty and the Pulitzer Panel for lying about it, I haven't forgotten their failures.

Anyway, give DJT a score.  A score with a decimal fraction is fine.  For instances, my score for Candidate Trump is 0.8.

Then ask yourself where you would put Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz.  Think especially about their views on freedom of speech (First Amendment) and the right of People to be wrong.

Exit Question:  If, as I would assert, Joseph Stalin was worse than Adolf Hitler, does that make his Left Wing Government more right wing than Nazism?

Regards  —  Cliff

Stopping The Donald

For John, BLUF:  There are a noticable number of Democrats who are exploring ways to thwart Former President Donald Trump from regaining the Oval Office.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Most Democrats Don’t Want Congress to Certify Election if Trump Wins

From Rasmussen Reports, on 11 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus three:

After the Supreme Court rejected attempts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot, a majority of Democratic voters now support another way to block Trump’s possible return to the White House.

A national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters say, if Trump wins this year’s election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results, including 20% who would Strongly Support such a move.  However, a majority (55%) would oppose Congress members refusing to certify a Trump victory, including 44% who Strongly Oppose the idea. Another 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Before the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s effort to bar Trump from the ballot in that state, it was suggested that Democrats in Congress could stop Trump from being certified as the election winner.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democratic voters would support such a maneuver, including 34% who Strongly Support it.  However, the idea of Congress blocking Trump from office is opposed by majorities of both Republicans (78%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (67%).

One wonders if they would be willing to show up, and demonstrate on Capitol Hill, ahead of the vote come January 2025.  Mais non Monsieur.  Good, America loving Democrats would never do such a thing.  Or would they?

Perhaps the old saw applies—What goes around comes around.

Stopping Donald J Trump, through means fair or foul, seems to dominate the thinking of Democrats.  Or is it just the Progressives?

Regards  —  Cliff

President Biden Disrespects the Constitution

For John, BLUF:  In our name, but without our agreement.  This is government by experts over government by democracy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden Uses Cold War Law to Nuke Your Gas Furnace

From PJ Media, by Blogger Stephen Green, 20 November 2023, 9:21 AM.

Here is the lede plus four:

Remember when it was nothing more than right-wing fearmongering that Democrats were going to outlaw your gas appliances? It was a more innocent time, way back in [checks notes] January of this year.

I sure do miss those days. So does my gas furnace.

Democrats went very quickly from "Nobody is going to take away your gas appliances" to "Biden invokes wartime powers to fund electric heaters as he cracks down on gas appliances."

"Wartime powers?" "Electric heaters?" One of these things is not like the other unless there are millions of dollars to throw around to your cronies while putting their competitors out of business. And sure enough, Biden will dole out $169 million of your tax dollars to boost the production of electric heat pumps.

What gives Biden the authority to throw money around like a drunken Congress to further an environmental agenda that the House rejected back in June? A 1950 law called the Defense Production Act (DPA) was meant to protect and promote the production of war materials. Biden is using it to make heat pumps.

And where is this money coming from?  The mislabeled Inflation Reduction Act.

So, the Federal Government isn't exactly banning gas stoves and furnaces, but it is using its power to give heat pumps a price advantage over other options.  This is the Government putting its thumb on the scale.

To me the big question is why the Administration didn't go to Congress to get these funds authorized and apropriated.  That would seem like the proper way to do things.  This makes the actions of Senator Tommy Tuberville (holds on military general and flag officer promotions over violation of the Hyde Amendment) make even more sense.  It is like the Biden Administrstion doesn't really respect the Constitutional process.  In the end, the ends do not justify the means.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Comey Warns Of Trump in 2024

For John, BLUF:  Mr James Comey, former FBI Director, is warning about a second Trump time in office.  Do you think he fears justice?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comey Warns Trump Might Use the Constitution Against Him and His Corrupt Friends

From PJ Media, by Opinion Writer Robert Spencer, 5 June 2023, 11:34.

Here is the lede plus two:

It is now well established that the FBI has become thoroughly and possibly irreparably corrupt and politicized, serving as a thuggish arm of the Leftist establishment rather than any kind of law enforcement agency.  Its decline accelerated during the tenure of the intensely partisan Leftist apparatchik James Comey as FBI director, but in the six years since Donald Trump removed Comey from office amid a storm of controversy, the lanky corruptocrat has shown not the slightest hint of introspection, much less regret.  Instead, he just went on MSNBC to warn that a new Trump administration could see the president weaponizing the justice system.  Well, Comey certainly knows all about weaponizing federal agencies for partisan purposes.

Former Biden explainer and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki said to Comey, “You’ve said that Trump poses a near-existential threat to the rule of law, and, and this is something, similar language, that I hear privately from national security officials, some people you and I both know, who will say this, privately, about what a second term could mean.  But tell me a little bit about the specifics of what he could try to do. What do you mean by that?”

The question was ridiculous, and the whole scenario was a charade.  Now that the Russian Collusion hoax has been definitively exposed and the Democrats’ Jan. 6 “insurrection” scenario has been discredited, Psaki should have been asking Comey about the contempt for the rule of law of his Leftist friends and colleagues, not of Donald Trump.  But for that, Psaki would have to be a genuine journalist, not a flack for the Leftist establishment playing the role of a journalist in order to fool gullible MSNBC viewers and throw red meat to the committed ideologues among their tiny audience.

I think this is a little overdrawn.  However, not by much.  I agree that among thinking Republicans Mr James Comey is understood to have been a vile person, who subverted the law and operated in unethical ways.  In short, he was not a gentleman.

Now Mr Comey comes before us and says that a Second Term President Trump would use his Constitutional powers to clean up the swamp that is Washington.  I sure hope so.  Or any other Republican elected to that office.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Bad Legislation

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats seem to still be concerned by the possibility President Trump might run again in 2024.  They are prepared to go to strange extremes to prevent such a thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

H.R.9578 - To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.

Thiss bill has been introduceed by Repreentative David N. Cicilline, Demoocrat of Rhode Island.  It is based upoon Representative Cicilline's understanding of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states:

‘‘No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’’.

I found this little jewel in Conservative Review, in an article titled:  "House Democrats Introduce Legislation That Would Bar Trump From The Presidency". This Bill has picked up 40 co-sponsors, includiing Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Masssachusetts Disterict 2.  The good news is that our Representative, Ms Lori Trahan, has not signed onto this legislation.♠

This proposed legislation, based on a Post-Civil War Amendment to the Constitution (14th Amwndweent), seems deficient to me.  It is an attempt to bar Former president Trump from serving as President again.  Or serving in any other office.

The problem is, President Trump has not yet been convicted of any crimes under the 14th Amendment.  Almost two years after the 6 January 2021 riot on Capitol Hill he has not yet even been indicted for any crime.  As an aside, if it was an insurrection on the part of President Trump isn't it the height of incompetence that the legal institutions have not yet done anything to bring him to "justice"?  Are we looking at one more self-indictment on the part of the Biden-Harris Administration?

Then there is the American voter.  While the media is moving to minimize the importance of the Twitter suppression of the original New York Post article on the Hunter Biden Laptop, the American People are giving it credibility..  Breitbart told us on 12 December of this year:  "Poll: 71% Say Accurate Reporting of Hunter’s Laptop Could Have Altered 2020 Election".  That is could vs would, but it is still an indication that the voting public is not to be toyed with for perverse political gain.

I think the US House of Representatives needs to let this piece of legislation die with the end of the 117th Congress.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I did take the time to Call Representative Trahan's Lowell Office and say that I thought this was a bad piece of legislation.

Congress, Do Your Job

For John, BLUF:  The US Congress needs to get back into the legislsting mode.  Not just feel good Bills, but substantive ones as well.  If Climate Change is an important issue, the US Congress needs to take a stand.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congresswoman Trahan's 4th of July Greeting

From Congresswoman Lori Trahan, 4 July 2022 .

Here is the lede plus one:

I hope you and your loved ones are enjoying a happy and safe Fourth of July!

What has always made our nation great is our unending stride toward progress and a more perfect union – a better, fairer nation for our children.  That’s what our parents fought for on our behalf, and it’s what we’ve been working toward for our children.

I expect that Congresswoman Trahan is alluding to the Dobbs decision on Abortion.  However, the decision on West Virginia v EPA is even more important in the long run, in that it says that Congress needs to get back to its job of Legislating.

The Dobbs decision doesn't end abortion in the United States, but does provide freedom to individual State Legislatures to make more local decisions on the issue of abortion.  These United States are diverse and one size does not alays fit everyone.

The key decision, however, demands of Congress that it do its job and legislate?  It is time for the Congresscritters to knuckle down and find solutions that meet our needs and can be passed with some participation from the other party.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Theme of the Supreme Court

For John, BLUF:  The recent Dobbs case shows that there are different views as to the role and power of the US Supreme Court.  This reference gives us an easy breakdown of the differences in approach to the role of our Supreme Court.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

There Are Two Fundamentally Irreconcilable Constitutional Visions

From Manhattan Contrarian, by Mr Francis Menton, 1 July 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

It’s been a momentous couple of weeks at the Supreme Court.  As usual, they saved the big cases for the end.  This year the big three were Bruen (gun rights), Dobbs (abortion rights) and West Virginia (administrative regulation of CO2).

All three cases were decided 6-3 along ideological lines.  These cases involved the most basic issues of what the Constitution is and how it is to be interpreted.  On those issues there is virtually no hope of one side ever convincing anyone from the other side.  There just are two fundamentally irreconcilable visions of how this should work.  The two visions can be summarized in just a few sentences each:

Vision 1.  The Constitution allocates powers to the three branches of government, and also lists certain rights entitled to constitutional protection.  The role of the courts is (1) to assure that the powers are exercised only by those to whom they are allocated, (2) to protect the enumerated rights, and (3) as to things claimed to be rights but not listed, to avoid getting involved.

Vision 2.  The Constitution is an archaic document adopted more than 200 years ago, and largely obsolete.  The role of the courts is to implement the current priorities of the academic left and then somehow rationalize how that is consistent with the written document.  If a right is enumerated in the Constitution but disfavored by the current left (e.g., the right to “keep and bear arms”), then the courts should find a way to uphold enactments that minimize that right down to the point that it is a nullity.  If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, but is a priority of the left (e.g., abortion), then that right can be discovered in some vague and unspecific constitutional language (“due process”).  And if the left has a priority to transform the economy and the way the people live, but the Congress does not have sufficient majorities to enact that priority, then the Executive agencies can implement that priority on their own authority, and the role of the courts is to assist the agencies in finding something in the tens of thousands of pages of federal statutes, however vague and dubious, that can be claimed to authorize the action.

I hold to Vision 1.  I am wary of Vision 2.  It seems to put me in the position of allowing a cabal of legislators to adjust our Constitution without going through the process laid out in our Constitution.  The same goes for the Supreme Court itself.  The Court should not be expanding or contracting our Constitution without going through the agreed Amendment process.

The Constitution is not perfect, as the twenty some amendments so far shows us.  However, it is an agreement that successfully brings together a diverse group of Citizens under one roof.  It works and we should be happy with that.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Administrative State

For John, BLUF:  The question of the place of Givernmental Bureaucrats in our scheme of Government is an important one.  It is becoming a topic of debate out in the public square.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Who Should Regulate?

Here is the sub-headline:

The question of whether federal agencies or the courts should have the right to interpret legislation may seem technical, but it significantly affects the power of the government.

From The New York Review of Books, by Professor Cass R. Sunstein, May 26, 2022 issue.

Reviewed:

The Chevron Doctrine:  Its Rise and Fall, and the Future of the Administrative State
by Thomas W. Merrill
Harvard University Press, 355 pp., $35.00

Here is the lede plus three:

Does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have the authority to impose a mask mandate on people who travel on planes, trains, and buses? In April a federal district court in Florida offered a clear answer: Absolutely not. The court gave an exceedingly narrow reading to the CDC’s powers under laws enacted by Congress. In the process, it sent an unmistakable signal: some conservative judges will not allow federal agencies to protect public safety and health unless Congress has unambiguously given them the authority to do so.

That signal is ominous. In a period of congressional deadlock, federal agencies often have to take the lead in responding to urgent social problems. During the Covid-19 pandemic, many of the nation’s most important decisions about vaccinations, air travel, masks, social distancing, and more have been made by White House officials, the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Policy responses to climate change have also primarily come from the White House, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies.

Because public policy is often made by administrative agencies, it can shift dramatically from one administration to another. Whether we are speaking about public health, civil rights, clean air, health care, food safety, tobacco, or immigration, fundamental policy judgments might well depend less on Congress than on who wins the presidency.

The administrative state has been with us since the founding. But much of modern government can be traced to the 1930s, when in response to the Great Depression Franklin Roosevelt created a host of new agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Social Security Administration. These agencies exercise a great deal of discretion, and they affect the lives of millions of Americans every day. (They also have international influence.) They were born in a period of enthusiasm for technical expertise: Roosevelt and his New Dealers believed in the rule of law, but they did not believe in the rule of courts; they wanted to give authority to specialists.

Later in the article Professor Sunstein gives a look at the issue:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh describes the [Chevron] doctrine as “nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.”

And this is one of things that worries me about our Government.  We elect people to the Houose of Representatives and Senate, and we elect a President, but the Bureaucrats selfpropogate, under little supervision from the other branches of the Government (Judicial and Legislative).  It is the Admijnitrative State.  To quote the Wikipedia article:

Dr. Michael Greve, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, defines the current implemented administrative state of the United States as, “a power once known as 'prerogative'—that is, the power to make binding rules without law, outside the law, or against the law, exercised by someone other than an elected legislature,"

You may find the idea of a technocentric government as good, based on the idea that the technocrats know what they are doing.  However, technocrats have brought us such things as eugenics and the Tuskegee Experiment.  Dependiing on the experts to deide what is good for the rest of us may be good with airline pilots, but semms antithetical to a Democratic or Republican form of Government.  When and where do the People decide?

If you thought Dr Anthony Fauci was supurb conducing the US response to the COVID, you might favor the Administrative State.  On the other hand, if you have been dubious of our overall response, if yoou wonder if Governor Ron DeSantis did a better job that Governor Andrew Cuomo in helping their state through the crisis, you might be opposed to the Administrative State.

I worry that the People, the Voters, might never get a voice in this debaate.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Administrative State

For John, BLUF:  For a Century the US Congress has been delegating its authornity to Bureaucrats in the Executive Branch or in independenert agencies.  As the author says, this started to be big with President Woodrow wilson.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Chink In The Armor Of The Progressive Administrative State

From Manhattan Contrarian, by Mr Francis Menton, 23 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The great mission of the early twentieth century Progressives was to transform our constitutional order without ever amending the Constitution itself.  The intellectual leader of the movement was Woodrow Wilson.  The fundamental idea was to replace the messy and contentious system of separated powers and slow bi-cameral lawmaking with a cadre of supposedly apolitical administrative “experts” who could run the country smoothly and efficiently. The idea sounded rather benign to most people at the time, and probably still sounds benign to most people today.  Who could be against having “experts” to run significant government agencies?  But a hundred-plus years into this project, we have seen cancerous growth of vast administrative bureaucracies, outside the constitutional structure, and exercising great powers, but accountable to no one but themselves — the very antithesis of the constitutional structure that our founders attempted to bequeath to us. Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans knocked a significant chink in the structure under which many of these agencies operate.  This chink may be only the first of many to come.  But we have deviated very far from the original structure, and the process of conforming the agencies to the constitutional structure will be a long and difficult one.  It is not moving quickly, and likely never will.  In this post I’ll try to give readers some perspective on where we are and where we may be headed, drawing in substantial part on a long post I previously wrote back in 2017.

When I was in grade school in the 1940s and 50s in South Jersey we were taught that President Woodrow Wilson was a great President.  Since then I have learned better.  He was problamatic in terms of race relations and bureaucratic growth and foreign relations and in terms of incapacitated Presidents.

We are talking laziness on the part of our elected representsatives.  And lazyiness on the part of we the voters.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trust the Voters

For John, BLUF:  This is item 4, about the Democrats trying to use the 14th Amendment to disqualify a [Republican] US House Candidate.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Monday Ethics Madness, 5/9/2022: Villains! Leakers,The Paid Liar, The ABA, And More

From Ethics Alarms, by Blogger Jack Marshall, 9 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

Another totalitarian move by Democrats fails. I wouldn’t vote for Marjorie Taylor Greene if she were running against that inflatable Jabba—or even the real Jabba—but the effort to keep her off the ballot using the 14th Amendment provision designed for members of the Confederacy shows just how ruthless and uninterested in democracy the current Democratic Party is.

Rather than finding a way to beat the loose-cannon Georgia Congresswoman fair, square, and on the merits, Democrats tried to defeat Greene by getting her name removed from the ballot by falsely accusing her of being a Confederate—OK, participating in an “insurrection against the nation” That’s a crime that Greene was never charged with, and none of the January 6th rioters have been so charged either. The challenge to Greene’s qualifications was based entirely on things she said or posted on social media supporting the rioters. Democrats were trying to remove her from the ballot based on political speech, which is First Amendment speech. (Progressives don’t like the First Amendment.)

A Georgia judge rejected the attempt, and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger quickly announced that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene will remain on the GOP primary ballot, saying,

“In this case, Challengers assert that Representative Greene’s political statements and actions disqualify her from office. That is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District.”

This relates to the previous post, about terrorism or vandalism.  If it was a Democrat being so attacted there would be cries of fascism.

Hat tip to the Ethics Alarms.

Regards  —  Cliff

Confusion in DC

For John, BLUF:  It appears that there is not a strong voice in the Executive Branch, guiding policy.  Thus we have gridlock.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Klain in Vain

Here is the sub-headline:

#43: Did Biden's chief of staff make a fateful blunder?

From Kaus Files, by Political Analyst Mickey Kaus, 2 November 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

There’s a remote—but increasingly less remote— possibility that Dems will wind up with neither of their two big spending bills:  1) the bipartisan “BIF” hard infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.) bill and 2) the partisan Dem social spending laundry list, aka “Build Back Better” (BBB).

Why would that happen?  Because Terry McAuliffe’s upset loss in Virginia could freak out vulnerable Dems, who then bail from the second, BBB bill — the way an Eric Cantor loss in Virginia freaked Congress out about “comprehensive immigration reform” and sank that legislation in 2014.  But if BBB dies … well, since many progressives only support the bipartisan “hard” infrastructure bill if it’s twinned with BBB, it’s possible enough of them might vote against the bipartisan bill to sink it too.  (It would only take 4 or 5, out of a “Progressive Caucus” of 94 members, to do that.) Biden’s agenda dies in a Tarantino gunfight.

Still an unlikely scenario, as it’s always been almost inconceivable that the Democrats would screw things up so badly they’d end up passing nothing.  But this achievement is now within reach, and if it happens, it looks like there will be an obvious fall guy: Ron Klain, President Biden’s chief of staff.

I find it hard to believe that the Troika (Biden, Pelosi and Schumer) can't make it happen.  Surely the staffs will eventually get together and find a compromise.  Compromise is what the system is set up to force on the elected officials.  So why isn't it happening?  If you think the system is hard broke then you take an all or nothing position.  I would describe it as a repudiation of our American experiment.

On the other hand, if President Biden is not exercising a strong hand, then power is fragmented in the Executive Branch.  There is not a clear voice, a certain trumpet, as the Good Book says, and we will have problems.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Right to Food?

For John, BLUF:  Meanwhile, up in Maine, they are voting on adding a "right" to their constitution.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Residents of this state will vote on constitutional ‘right to food’

From The New York Post, by the Associated Press, 25 October 2021, 3:38pm .

Here is the lede plus two:

Depending on whom you ask, Maine’s proposed “right to food” constitutional amendment would simply put people in charge of how and what they eat — or would endanger animals and food supplies, and turn urban neighborhoods into cattle pastures.

For supporters, the language is short and to the point, ensuring the right to grow vegetables and raise livestock in an era when corporatization threatens local ownership of the food supply, a constitutional experiment that has never been tried in any state.

For opponents and skeptics, it’s deceptively vague, representing a threat to food safety and animal welfare, and could embolden residents to raise cows in their backyards in cities like Portland and Bangor.

This is food for thought.  .

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Today's Holiday

For John, BLUF:  We would be a lot worse off if we were still under the Articles of Confederation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Constitution Day

Here is the basics, from Wikipedia:

The law establishing the present holiday was created in 2004 with the passage of an amendment by Senator Robert Byrd to the Omnibus spending bill of 2004.  Before this law was enacted, the holiday was known as "Citizenship Day" and celebrated on the third Sunday in May.  In addition to renaming the holiday "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day," the act mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions, and all federal agencies, provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day.  In May 2005, the United States Department of Education announced the enactment of this law and that it would apply to any school receiving federal funds of any kind.

Learning about and appreciating our US Constitution is important for the exercise of Citizenshiop.

I wonder what local public schools did today to teach about our US Constitution.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Vaccine Mandates

For John, BLUF:  The President, apparently without consulting with Congress, has assumed dictatorial powers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Larry Kudlow calls out 'anti-freedom part' of Biden's vaccine mandates

Here is the sub-headline:

'President Biden caused a firestorm yesterday by announcing his mandate'

From Fox Business News, by Anchor Larry Kudlow, 10 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

"If they'll not help... if these governors won't help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way."

Don't take it from me. Take a listen to the president himself who is thumbing his nose at our nation's governors and after he thumbs his nose at them, he's putting his finger in their eye.

Federalism is dead. Don't take it from me, take it from President Biden.

The Constitution?  The Bill of Rights?  Roe v Wade?.  The role of the US Congress?

All gone in a flash because not everyone will do as President Joseph Biden says.

It is almost like Donald Trump won in 2020.  Not the real Donald J Trump, but the one pictured in the minds of Progressives and many Democrats.

But, it wasn't just a Bidenism.  His staff was out backing up his move.  For example, on the CNN Don Lemon Tonight Show we have the Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, former Congressman Cedric Richmond.

Senior White House adviser:  Biden will 'run over' governors standing in way of vaccine mandates

Here is the sub-headline:

'We won’t let one or two individuals stand in the way,' adviser Cedric Richmond declared

And this article's lede:

Senior White House adviser Cedric Richmond declared Thursday that President Joe Biden would "run over" governors that stood in the way of his efforts to mandate vaccinations against the coronavirus in companies with more than 100 employees.

We are going to run over the Governors?

If I thought the agencies of the Federal Government followed the science, let along understood it, I might have some willingness to concede the President was trying to help us.  As it is, I think he is just swatting wildly at the problem, and breaking things in the process.

Regards  —  Cliff

Vaccine Mandates

For John, BLUF:  President Biden seems to have little tolerence for pushback  If people won't do it his way, he doubles down, the Constitution be damned.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Horrific Outcomes of the Jacobson Case You’re Using to Justify Biden’s Vaccine Mandates

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden is about to find out that he’ll have as hard of a time eradicating freedom and personal choice in this country as trying to eradicate the coronavirus.

From The Hannah H Cox Blog, by Ms Hanna Cox, 10 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

It’s been a hell of a news cycle for bodily autonomy.

The left is in histrionics over the new Texas abortion law that bans the procedure after six weeks, and the rest of us are aghast at Biden’s new executive order forcing private companies to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

You’ll find few people in both camps, however, a testament to just how partisan and unprincipled our country has truly become.  That’s a tangent for another time, though.  Right now, I want to talk about the legality of Biden’s mandate.

Even before the ink dried one could hear the lawsuits being filed.

The legality of mandating vaccines is based on the 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  This originated in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and made its way to the US Supreme Court.

Then there is the 1927 case, Buck v. Bell.  At the height of the Eugenics movement.  This ruling, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., of Massachusetts, said it was legal to sterilize those who were "feebleminded."

On the other hand, we have Roe v Wade, which legalized abortion.♠  How does "Our Bodies! Our Choice!" fit into this?

If the Courts empower and encourage President Biden in this area we will see a further erosion of our civil rights in the United States and we will become a little more like the People's Republic of China.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  There was no abortion and the name of the child, a daughter was recently revealed.

Democrats Set To Overturn The Voters' Choice

For John, BLUF:  It isn't enough to win.  One must win convincingly.  That is, convincingly enough that an overturn in Congress would draw ridicule and sarcasm and an uproar in the press and the home district.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Jack Phillips, March 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021.

Here is the lede plus four:

The Democrat-run House of Representatives is open to overturning a tight Republican victory in an Iowa Congressional district, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) defeated Democrat Rita Hart by six votes during the Nov. 3 election.  When asked about a scenario in which Democrats would unseat Miller-Meeks, Pelosi said it was a “hypothetical” situation but later said it’s possible that it could happen.

“Well, I respect the work of the committee,” she told reporters in her weekly press conference.  “I did see, as you saw in the press, what they decided to—and they were following my, as I read it, the requirements of the law as to how you go forward.  And how you go forward is the path you’re on and we’ll see where that takes us.  But there could be a scenario to that extent.  Yes.”

It came after the House Committee on House Administration dismissed a motion filed by Miller-Meeks to dismiss Hart’s election contest.

“The margin separating the two candidates was only six votes out of almost 400,000 cast: less than 1/6 of 1 percent.  That’s six votes—not 6,000; not 600; not 60 or even 16—just six fewer votes than we have members of this committee,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the head of the committee, told the panel’s members.  She added:  “It should not be surprising that any candidate in these circumstances—with a margin this close—would seek to exercise their rights under the law to contest the results.”

We could call it the Majority Enrichment Law.  If your party is in the majority they are likely to vote in your favor, and if not, then it is unfortunate.

It reminds me of the Groucho Marx comment:  "I have principles.  If you don't like them, I have other principles."

Regards  —  Cliff

Why Is The National Guard Still In DC?

For John, BLUF:  We need some adult leadership in DC.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Capitol officials to bolster security on March 4 over QAnon threats

From The Hill, by Reporter Cristina Marcos, 2 March 2021, 03:07 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus one:

The top security official overseeing the House informed lawmakers this week that security will be heightened on Thursday due to a QAnon-linked conspiracy theory that former President Trump will be inaugurated on that date.

Acting Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett said in a memo that Capitol Police will have additional personnel on duty throughout the Capitol grounds in addition to the continued National Guard presence.

And here is the same story, from The Sun.

Yes, QAnon has been talking up some big event on 4 March, which would have been Inauguration Day right up until the passage of the 20th Amendment, back in 1933.

So what is going on in the minds of folks responsible for the security of the Capitol Building?  What chatter are they hearing that the rest of us are not?  And what is their track record?

• They missed the move to Occupy Capitol Hill on 6 Janaury.
• They told us about protests at all 50 State Capitols, plus the District of Columbia, on Inauguration Day, which never happened.
• The explanations of what did happen on 6 January have been, from both Government and the media, slow to emerge and muddled, aside from blaming President Trump, which now appears off, an Impeachment notwithstanding.

So, the 18 Federal Intelligence Agencies of the Intelligence Community, which violated the Civil Rights of Trump Campaign Staff during his first run, and perhaps President Trump himself, seem totally out of their depth at this point in dealing with QAnon.

Assuming there is no major event on 4 March, and I don't expect one, when will the National Guard Units deployed to the Nation's Capitol return home?  And when will we start asking questions about what we knew and when we knew it?

Regards  —  Cliff