Family Security Matters
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
The United States has reached a political precipice. The country is facing the greatest Constitutional and existential crisis since the Civil War, a situation which may expose America to assaults on its national security equivalent to Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
In an effort to force a radical transformation of the United States, the rogue Obama Administration, enabled by a complicit Congress and a compliant media, has attempted to undermine the Constitution, usurp the power it reserves for the States and deny the rights it guarantees to the American people.
Executing and enforcing federal law is the fundamental duty of the executive branch of government. When a president substantially alters the intent of the laws passed by Congress or creates the conditions for avoiding compliance with the law, he is violating the Constitution.
President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it “violates the separation of powers” by encroaching on his presidential authority.
“[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. “Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.”
The American system of government has as it’s chief executive, a president who is carefully checked by a watchful Congress and a consientious judiciary.
Except, when it isn’t.
Case in point: Our president plans to rule us – not govern us – by using the vast powers of his office and absolute control of the federal bureaucracy to ram his vision of hope and change down our throats. Done without the approval of Congress and with little challenge from the judiciary.
Can he get away with it? Watch him:
The Blog Sphere is safe for now.
Via Hot Air
Yesterday’s oral arguments on the recess-appointment issue demonstrated that the Supreme Court may be ready to pull the reins sharply on the Obama administration’s exercise of power. Today, the DC Court of Appeals did the same thing. In a unanimous decision (with some dissent on the justification), the court invalidated the Net Neutrality rules imposed by the FCC when Congress refused to approve them:
By classifying Internet access as an “information service” as opposed to a “telecommunications service” — which is the classification used for traditional telephone companies — the FCC cannot impose its “anti-discrimination” and “anti-blocking” rules on Internet providers, the court said.
“Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.”
The decision is blow to President Obama, who made net neutrality a campaign pledge in 2008, and erases one of the central accomplishments of former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed the “Open Internet” order.
The order does give the FCC some daylight on rewriting regulations, but that will require the FCC to significantly rethink its broad classifications and regulatory approach, at least according to The Hill’s reporting. FCC chair Tom Wheeler said he will consider an appeal to the Supreme Court, but he may want to first read Judge Silberman’s partial dissent, especially its conclusion:
The Commission asserts – and the majority accepts – that broadband providers act as “gatekeepers” because each one has a so-called “terminating monopoly” over access to particular end users. These are terms, largely invented,7 the economic significance of which the Commission does not explain. All retail stores, for instance, are “gatekeepers.” The term is thus meaningful only insofar as the gatekeeper by means of a powerful economic position vis-a-vis consumers gains leverage over suppliers.8 The Commission made no effort to construct an analytic framework to measure this supposed gateway advantage – it is a rather slippery concept – nor did it adduce evidence to establish the economic power it would supposedly afford all broadband providers against all edge providers. …
On the other hand, the Commission asserts that broadband customers may have few alternatives or they may be locked into long-term contracts with early-termination fees. To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm’s having market power, but that itself is not market power. There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers. By pointing to potential difficulties consumers may encounter switching broadband providers, the Commission is simply implying that broadband providers have market power (market power lite?), without actually examining if and where they do. …
This regulation essentially provides an economic preference to a politically powerful constituency, a constituency that, as is true of typical rent seekers, wishes protection against market forces. The Commission does not have authority to grant such a favor.
In his 1952 book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Israeli historian J. L. Talmon described a political system in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government.
The federal government has become such a system, an entity unto itself operating outside of Constitutional constraints and unaccountable to the American people.
The United States is now controlled by a Democratic and Republican ruling class that transcends government and sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf.The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, only reluctantly, any civil right to do so.
Power rests, not with the citizens, but with a relatively small group of politicians and financiers, who enhance their personal wealth and privilege by looting the country through a self-serving legislative process. They maintain their authority by adjusting the levers of government and using the establishment media to manipulate public perception and opinion.