Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall

[Flopper]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

 

[Flopper]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

So you're saying Obama declared a national emergency and took the money that congress refused to give him?

 

[rightwinger]

Which you are against maintaining.


Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.



Because you hate America.

Nope, you’re lying again.

The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.


I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.


In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.


That is fairly insane of you, but ok.



So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?

By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.

Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.


Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.


That is not a lie I am telling.


My question stands.


what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?

Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.

Somehow he thinks that elected officials deciding against wasting money in s wall is denying people of their rights

 

[danielpalos]

Is there really a border emergency?

More than 2,000 people were turned away or arrested at the border each day during November 2018. Supporters of Mr. Trump's plans for a wall have said the numbers constitute an emergency.
Asylum seekers are having to wait in Mexico for the asylum claim to be processed and that could take many months or years. That is a national emergency. WE do not have enough detentions centers to hold them and neither the money.

We have a Commerce Clause; only Lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.

 

[deanrd]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

Clemson University, GE Power push advanced manufacturing forward at GE Power’s Additive Manufacturing Lab in Greenville




Clemson University, GE Power push advanced manufacturing forward at GE Power’s Additive Manufacturing Lab in Greenville

Tara Romanella, Clemson University Relations
February 20, 2019

0

Share
GE Power dedicates three advanced machines, 1,000 square feet inside company’s Greenville-based Advanced Manufacturing Works for use by Clemson students, faculty and staff.

Lab will create new educational opportunities, talent pipeline in additive manufacturing across South Carolina.

GE Power’s Advanced Manufacturing Works facility in Greenville.
Image Credit: GE

GREENVILLE — Clemson University students, faculty and staff can now learn and innovate using state-of-the-art 3D printing technology alongside General Electric (GE) engineers in the new Additive Manufacturing Lab at GE Power’s Advanced Manufacturing Works facility. Unveiled at a ceremony with leaders and constituents from GE and Clemson Wednesday, the 1,000-square-foot space is Clemson’s first additive manufacturing lab housed at a corporate partner’s site.

The lab is part of a strategic partnership between Clemson and GE that will accelerate innovations in additive manufacturing, provide expanded educational opportunities for Clemson undergraduate and graduate students and create a robust engineering talent pipeline for industry across the state.

“Our state is a leader in advanced manufacturing and Clemson will continue to be a valuable resource for our industry partners,” said Clemson President James P. Clements. “This state-of-the-art lab will provide our students with a unique, hands-on learning experience and better prepare them for the work force. I am grateful to GE for providing our students with this opportunity.”

The Clemson-run lab will be managed by the university’s Center for Advanced Manufacturing. It will feature three machines that print in both metal and industrial plastic, including a new GE Additive Concept Laser M2 Cusing direct metal laser melting (DMLM) machine. GE professionals will train students this spring on specific uses of additive manufacturing as well as optimized machine operations and post-processing techniques.This will provide them with skills and experience on cutting-edge technology used by industry leaders today.

“We know advanced manufacturing will continue transforming business around the globe and we’re leaders in the field,” said John Lammas, chief engineer and chief technology officer of GE Power. “By partnering with Clemson, a South Carolina top public institution, we will be able to train students from one of the country’s leading institutions to be the next generation of engineers, furthering their education and preparing them to move additive manufacturing forward.

Deep Orange 9, a next-generation Rallycross race car, was on display in the Additive Manufacturing Lab Wednesday. Students will be able to use the machines in the new lab to build prototypes for future Deep Orange projects.
Image Credit: GE Power

Graduate students in the automotive engineering department will be the first to take advantage of this new lab. Through the Deep Orange program, Clemson students work with automotive manufacturers to engineer and build a car from concept to reality within two years. The Additive Manufacturing Lab will make it possible for students to design and create parts needed for the project more efficiently than before, producing breakthrough results not possible with traditional manufacturing.

This partnership was developed through Clemson’s Office of Corporate Partnerships and Strategic Initiatives. Other departments at Clemson are

 

[Faun]

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.

Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.


Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did. You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......

 

[Faun]

Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.

No one said anything like that at all except for you.

You are an imbecile AND a liar.

I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.

And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.


You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.

Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.


But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.


If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.


Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,


the actions of an imbecile and a liar.

LOLOL

These two statements...

”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”

... and ...

”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”

... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.

So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?



Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

 

[Faun]

I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.

Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.


Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did. You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Your desperate nitpicking is funny.

LOL

And by “nitpicking,” you mean pointing out he was convicted of something of which Hillary was not accused.

 

[depotoo]

From the oig report-
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)

..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.

..
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

..
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.


Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did. You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......

 

[Faun]

From the oig report-
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)

..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.

..
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

..
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did. You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......

I asked for a law, not a department rule.

Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?

 

[LilOlLady]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

If you really believe that maybe you should live in a cave.

 

[LilOlLady]

There is no emergency on the border. Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power. History repeating itself perhaps?

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?

The Right is not pushovers and believes in teaching one how to fish instead of giving them fish and the Left don't know their you know what from a hole in the ground. There is goodwill, and there are users and abusers who are illegals who will take advantage of you and the Left are enablers. And illegals know it. And that is what the Left is all about. Kind of like Christians teaching hellfire and brimstone and tell you if you give them your money they will keep you out of hell. Like whats his name running for president again want to GIVE everyone free college education.

 

[danielpalos]

So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law, and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.

say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?

The Right is not pushovers and believes in teaching one how to fish instead of giving them fish and the Left don't know their you know what from a hole in the ground. There is goodwill, and there are users and abusers who are illegals who will take advantage of you and the Left are enablers. And illegals know it. And that is what the Left is all about. Kind of like Christians teaching hellfire and brimstone and tell you if you give them your money they will keep you out of hell. Like whats his name running for president again want to GIVE everyone free college education.

the right wing is all Talk. they allege a work ethic from the Age of Iron and learning how to fish; but red herrings is all they have.

 

[LilOlLady]

But when the country set boundaries it offends other countries? A left-wing analogy.

 

[Correll]

Nope, you’re lying again.

The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.


I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.


In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.


That is fairly insane of you, but ok.



So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?

By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.

Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.


Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.


That is not a lie I am telling.


My question stands.


what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?

Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.

Somehow he thinks that elected officials deciding against wasting money in s wall is denying people of their rights

Said the man purposefully misrepresenting what I said,

because he knows that what I ACTUALLY said, was completely right, yet he is too much of a pussy to admit it.

 

[Correll]

I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.

And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.


You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.

Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.


But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.


If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.


Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,


the actions of an imbecile and a liar.

LOLOL

These two statements...

”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”

... and ...

”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”

... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.

So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?



Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

 

[Correll]

Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.


Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did. You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Your desperate nitpicking is funny.

LOL

And by “nitpicking,” you mean pointing out he was convicted of something of which Hillary was not accused.

Do you think of yourself as a literal serf?