Barr speaks at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention

[Danke]

[Danke]

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society's 2019 National Lawyers Convention

text:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...morial-lecture

[fcreature]

This was a fantastic lecture. And the tyrant left is already calling for his impeachment for it.

[Swordsmyth]

Leftist headline: Calls for AG Barr’s Impeachment intensify after ‘lunatic authoritarian’ Federalist Society speech.

[Matt Collins]

Whose dumb idea was this?They should have run his statist ass out of there on a rail

[Anti Globalist]

This was a fantastic lecture. And the tyrant left is already calling for his impeachment for it.

The left will call for impeachment on just about anything.

[Swordsmyth]

Whose dumb idea was this?They should have run his statist ass out of there on a rail

Perhaps you can explain what he said that you object to?

[acptulsa]

Whose dumb idea was this?They should have run his statist ass out of there on a rail

You expect a statist ass to be run out of the Federalist Society?

[Matt Collins]

Perhaps you can explain what he said that you object to?

His support for Ruby Ridge incident, his anti-gun stance, etc.

[Origanalist]

Perhaps you can explain what he said that you object to?

Actions speak louder than words. He's already shown his pre-crime authoritarian colors. Go ahead, call me a leftist.

[acptulsa]

Perhaps you can explain what he said that you object to?

I reject his whole premise. The Executive Branch hasn't been "ground down" since the 1960s. It has created bureaus, imposed regulations, issued executive orders, and prosecuted an endless succession of non-war wars which have been used as an excuse to declare an equally endless succession of "emergencies".

The one really good thing about the Constitution was it made it hard to do things. Now the executive regulates, prosecutes, bypasses, declares, bureaucratizes and tyrannizes with the greatest of ease.

[Swordsmyth]

I reject his whole premise. The Executive Branch hasn't been "ground down" since the 1960s. It has created bureaus, imposed regulations, issued executive orders, and prosecuted an endless succession of non-war wars which have been used as an excuse to declare an equally endless succession of "emergencies".

The one really good thing about the Constitution was it made it hard to do things. Now the executive regulates, prosecutes, bypasses, declares, bureaucratizes and tyrannizes with the greatest of ease.

Other than the war power and emergency power delegation you are completely wrong.

Congress has unconstitutionally imposed controls on the executive and transferred power from the President to the bureaucracy and the courts.
It all started with the institution of the civil service system that prevented the President from firing bureaucrats at will and instituted the deepstate.

[acptulsa]

Other than the war power and emergency power delegation you are completely wrong.

Congress has unconstitutionally imposed controls on the executive and transferred power from the President to the bureaucracy and the courts.
It all started with the institution of the civil service system that prevented the President from firing bureaucrats at will and instituted the deepstate.

The war powers and emergency declarations have by themselves done as much or more as as anything and maybe everything else. That said, how does expanding the Executive Branch and giving the Executive Branch the ability to enact regulations with the rule of law behind them that Congress had nothing to do with empower Congress at the expense of Executive power?

[Swordsmyth]

That said, how does expanding the Executive Branch and giving the Executive Branch the ability to enact regulations with the rule of law behind them that Congress had nothing to do with empower Congress at the expense of Executive power?

They have taken all power over the bureaucracy to themselves.
The President is prevented from doing anything to the bureaucracy without the consent of Congress.
If you want to get technical they have invented a new branch of government and transferred power from the executive branch to it and making it accountable to them more than to the President.

[acptulsa]

They have taken all power over the bureaucracy to themselves.
The President is prevented from doing anything to the bureaucracy without the consent of Congress.
If you want to get technical they have invented a new branch of government and transferred power from the executive branch to it and making it accountable to them more than to the President.

We are talking about the same people Congress can't get testimony out of because Executive Privilege, right?

[Swordsmyth]

We are talking about the same people Congress can't get testimony out of because Executive Privilege, right?

Yes, the goal is to elevate the bureaucracy above all elected officials and subordinate only to the lifetime appointed judiciary.

The degradation of Presidential authority over the executive branch is just as bad or worse than the delegation of Congressional authority to the President and/or the bureaucracy but you don't hear anyone mention very often.

[acptulsa]

Yes, the goal is to elevate the bureaucracy above all elected officials and subordinate only to the lifetime appointed judiciary.

The degradation of Presidential authority over the executive branch is just as bad or worse than the delegation of Congressional authority to the President and/or the bureaucracy but you don't hear anyone mention very often.

Let me see if I'm keeping this tale straight.

The bureaucracy is the Deep State. Not the bankers. Not the arms manufacturers. Not the people reaping the serious money. The bureaucracy. And it wants Trump out, probably because Trump keeps firing them.

It has more power than Congress, and Congress has more power than Trump. But the Deep Bureaucracy needs Congress to get rid of Trump. Yet it won't testify before Congress to help them get rid of Trump.

That's your story? You sticking to it?

[TheCount]

[misterx]

I'm no fan of Bill Barr for sure, but then outside of immigration I wasn't a fan of Sessions either. At least Barr is more willing to attack leftists, and hopefully prosecute them. That's the one silver lining.

[Swordsmyth]

Let me see if I'm keeping this tale straight.

The bureaucracy is the Deep State. Not the bankers. Not the arms manufacturers. Not the people reaping the serious money. The bureaucracy. And it wants Trump out, probably because Trump keeps firing them.

It has more power than Congress, and Congress has more power than Trump. But the Deep Bureaucracy needs Congress to get rid of Trump. Yet it won't testify before Congress to help them get rid of Trump.

That's your story? You sticking to it?

You need to read what I said and stop imagining I said thing I didn't say.

[fcreature]

His support for Ruby Ridge incident, his anti-gun stance, etc.

Weird. I didn't hear anything about those topics in the lecture.

[enhanced_deficit]

Leftist headline:

Was it you suggesting Barr was Deep State recently ( around the time news of Deputy AJ Ronsenstein comparing recent shootings to "white terrorism") ?



Related

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/07/justice-department-online-gambling-gop-donor-sheldon-adelson-trump-column/2787194002/

Sheldon Adelson Got a Surprise Gift in the Middle of the Government Shutdown

February 8 2019
Department of Justice shouldn't end online gambling to appease Trump donor Sheldon Adelson

[Matt Collins]

Weird. I didn't hear anything about those topics in the lecture.

Of course not. He plays to the crowd. He isn't an idiot.

[fcreature]

Of course not. He plays to the crowd. He isn't an idiot.

Oh, okay. I guess I'm confused about the relevance of your statement then...?

Any-who, it was a very good lecture with a very sound constitutional basis.

[Matt Collins]

Any-who, it was a very good lecture with a very sound constitutional basis.

In which case he is a hypocrite because he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

Weird. I didn't hear anything about those topics in the lecture.

https://www.theamericanconservative....g-fbi-snipers/

[fcreature]

https://www.theamericanconservative....g-fbi-snipers/

... huh??? Even less relevant to the topic at hand.

Maybe you can listen to the lecture and we can discuss the points made within?

[Matt Collins]

... huh??? Even less relevant to the topic at hand.

Maybe you can listen to the lecture and we can discuss the points made within?

Doesn't matter. Anything that comes out of his mouth is crap.

[Swordsmyth]

School children learn that there are three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. In actual practice, however, there are four branches of government.
The fourth is what for decades now has been called a "headless fourth branch of government," the administrative state.
As early as 1937, in a "Report of the President's Committee on Administrative Management," the authors write:

Without plan or intent, there has grown up a headless "fourth branch" of the Government, responsible to no one, and impossible of coordination with the general policies and work of the Government as determined by the people through their duly elected representatives.

The problem of waste and lack of accountability in this fourth branch, the report notes, has "been clearly recognized for a generations and ha[s] been growing steadily worse decade by decade."
The Spoils System and the Permanent Bureaucracy

The report isn't wrong. By the late nineteenth century, "civil service reform" had ended the old system "spoils system" and the advent of lifelong "professional" civil servants, brought the establishment of a bureaucratic class which saw its interests and loyalties as separate from the elected civilian government. This detachment from elected policymakers meant the administrative state was not terribly concerned with either efficiency of responsiveness to the public. It became an interest group all its own, but with far more power than any ordinary interest group.
The creation of the professional civil service had been a victory over the legacy of the populist Andrew Jackson who had demanded a move away from the old "professional" bureaucracy established by the Federalists. Jackson denounced the professional bureaucrats, concluding such persons "acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon the public interests and of tolerating conduct from which an unpracticed man would revolt." Instead, the Jacksonians insisted "rotation" in government offices "constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed."
In practice, of course, this new non-political bureaucracy was anything but unbiased. Over time, the bureaucracy became self-consciously devoted to the "merit" system under which the bureaucrats imagined they gained and retained their offices by virtue of their own excellence.
Nonetheless, this problem of the bureaucracy as self-interested class would have remained quite limited were the powers of the bureaucracy more limited. Yet with the advent of the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt, the size, scope, and power of the administrative state multiplied.
The Bureaucracy Takes Over the Functions of the Other Branches of Government

Moreover, as the New Deal progressed, the regulatory agencies came to assume all the powers that were supposed to be reserved to the branches of government that were given specific powers in the federal constitution. In his book Ex America (aka The People's Pottage) Garet Garrett described this transformation:

These agencies have built up a large body of administrative law which the people are obliged to obey. And not only to they make their own laws; they enforce their own laws, acting as prosecutor, jury and judge; and appeal form their decisions to the regular courts is difficult. … Thus the Constitutional separation of the three governmental powers, namely, the legislative, the executive and the judicial is entirely lost."

Thus, thanks to the rise of this fourth branch of government, an American is subject to laws not passed by any Congress, and subject to judicial punishments not commanded by any court of law. It's all done "administratively" but nonetheless allows the agencies to "make and execute their own laws."
The Rise of the National Security Bureaucracy

At the same time the regulatory administrative state was making so many gains, so was the federal government's domestic police force.
First came the Justice Department's Bureau of Investigation — later the FBI — and its General Intelligence Division used to spy on Americans during the First World War. The Division's head Jay Edgar Hoover helped execute the "Palmer Raids" used to persecute Americans who were insufficiently worshipful of the Wilson administration's national security policies. Over time, Hoover would work tirelessly to turn the FBI into a law unto itself, using it to blackmail politicians, harass innocent Americans, and generally twist American law and the American political system to benefit Hoover, his cronies, and the FBI itself.
Things became worse after the Second World War when Congress made permanent the intelligence agencies that had formed during the war to gather intelligence on the Axis.
These organizations — most notably the Central Intelligence Agency — would come to function virtually without oversight, with most of their activities declared too secret to endure public scrutiny. Over time, these ostensibly civilian organizations would become increasingly intertwined with the growing "special operations" arms of the Department of Defense. By the early twenty-first century, the Pentagon would develop "its own clandestine intelligence" capabilities and take over many of the "covert paramilitary activities and unconventional warfare" operations once directed by the CIA. The line between the nation's intelligence agencies and the conventional military agencies became increasingly blurred.
But these agencies always exercised far more power in the American political system than was indicated on paper. As J. Edgar Hoover knew all too well, intelligence agencies can use their powers to collect information on elected officials, and use that information to protect the intelligence agencies themselves. The strategic use of "leaks," reports, investigations, and criminal prosecutions through the Justice Department allow the intelligence organs of the United States to "nudge" policymakers in directions that service the preferred agenda of the security agencies themselves.
Ordinary and obscure Americans, of course, are all the more at the mercy of organizations like the FBI. Few regular people possess the resources necessary to mount a defense against the Justice Department's gargantuan budgets and legions of attorneys that can be aimed at any American who becomes annoying to these federal law enforcement bureaucrats and their friends.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...nch-government

[Swordsmyth]

More unconstitutional power grabbing by Congress:




Legislation to stop Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from Nato has been approved for a Senate vote, amid uncertainty over the president’s intentions towards the alliance.
The Senate foreign relations committee on Wednesday voted unanimously for the bipartisan bill which will now await a slot to go to the Senate. Senator Tim Kaine, the draft legislation’s lead Democratic sponsor, said it was a response to fears that the Trump administration is actively considering withdrawal.
“We’re aware that it has been seriously debated and seriously considered in the White House at the highest levels,” Kaine told the Guardian. Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, reportedly warned last month that, if re-elected in 2020, Trump could go “full isolationist” and withdraw from the 70-year-old North Atlantic alliance.


Kaine predicted his bill to block a Nato withdrawal would gain overwhelming support from the House of Representatives and win a veto-proof majority in the upper chamber of at least 67 votes.
“I don’t think [Trump] would veto this bill if it came to his desk because of the signal that it would send would be such an unfortunate one,” Kaine told the Guardian. “It would be seen as so destabilizing by our allies that I don’t think he would do it. And furthermore, I don’t think the president would veto a bill if he thought he’s going to be overridden, and I think he would be overridden on this one.”
The bill aims to close a loophole in the US constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty, but is silent on what it takes to exit a treaty. Kaine’s bill requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate to pull the US out of Nato. The president would have to notify Congress of any effort taken towards termination of US membership, and any no congressionally mandated funds could be spent on withdrawal. Congressional legal counsel would be authorized to challenge the White House in the courts over any presidential attempt to withdraw.


“It specifies clearly, that the the law of the land will now be that a president cannot withdraw from Nato absent a congressional vote,” Kaine said. “So he could announce he was withdrawing, but that would be an illegal action, and we would feel completely confident that a court would uphold us.”
Trump has raised doubt over whether he would order the US to fight if certain Nato allies were attacked, as required by article 5 of the alliance’s founding document. The president has suggested that collective defence should be made conditional on member states meeting the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.
At a leaders’ meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Nato in the UK earlier this month, Trump defended Nato against criticism from the French president, Emmanuel Macron, but did little to allay fears that he did not fear bound by Nato’s collective defence obligations.
“We may not change Donald Trump’s minds about these things. But I think what our allies are looking for is some assurance that the American public still finds value in the alliance,” Senator Kaine said. “And I think a bill like this, in addition to having some practical effect, would start to answer that question positively.”
Constanze Stelzenmueller, the Kissinger chair on foreign policy and international relations at the Library of Congress, said the legislation, if passed, might go some way to steadying European nerves ahead of the 2020 US elections.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-co...230358166.html