No Chit Sherlock: Where have YOU Been?

Like most Americans who are fighting for the American way of life when I come on line there is one site that always comes up, the Drudge Report.

While scanning the headlines, I came across a link to a story that made me choke on my coffee.

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking at the time and didn't copy the headline for farther use, BUT will attempt to paraphrase from memory, “Schlafly: TPP means Congress abdicates authority”. Now, if I didn't get it exactly right, sorry, I'm sure Drudge or someone will correct me.

Now, in all due respect to Ms Schlafly, who from what I have read is a very smart and talented writer, BUT I must ask her, “No chit Sherlock, where have you been?” Congress (as well as the states) has unconstitutionally been abdicating its authority for over a century and NOW people are complaining.

First things first

Let's take a look at the Constitution, you know the document that is suppose to tell the federal government what it CAN do, as opposed to the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, which tells the federal government what it can not do.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 says:

“...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...”

I fully understand that there is no single man elected to the office of president who does not need advice from “experts” in their fields, except maybe Obama, to govern this great country. But does this clause mean that a department within executive branch can control by regulations, NOT laws passed by congress, commerce and just about all aspects of American's freedom and life.

So what did/does congress do instead doing their duty as defined by the Constitution, they unconstitutionally turn their “powers” over to the executive branch by either passing laws or establishing cabinet posts.

Antiquities Act of 1906

This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

The key word is owned, did or has the Federal government paid any state or did any state's legislature give its consent for this land to be taken or was it seized on the whim of the President with consent of congress in order to give federal government control over mineral, including oil and gas, exploration and production? As stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

“...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...” (My emphasis)

Or was this an early attempt for the “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (Page 26) or maybe “The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.” (Page 376).

Federal Communication Commission

Take a look at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which clearly says:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Once again people need to ask, does this clause say that congress can abdicate this power to the executive branch?

As with the Antiquities Act of 1906, congress willfully violated the Constitution to establish the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1934 to take over the duties that were handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” by working towards “six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security.”

The key words, in my opinion, is regulate interstate. Is this NOT the responsibility of Congress or is this a subtle way to establish “The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.” (Page 376)

There are some who will say, “This was passed under FDR and was needed because of the 'Depression'.”

Would someone please explain to me how government control of radio, telephone, radio and telegraphs (at that time in history) would help America to recover from the Depression.

Let's fast forward, this same FCC has and is working very hard to seize control of the internet through “Net Neutrality”. Again, where in the Constitution does a department within the executive branch have the right to regulate what a privately owned business can or cannot do?

Where in the Constitution does it give an agency, not even a Cabinet post to regulate international trade and or treaty? Is this not the jobs of the House and Senate?

Take the out of control EPA.

The EPA was established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, was established to protect both public health and public welfare by regulating the emission of air pollutants that could be (my emphasis) hazardous to the health of the Earth. The law set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in each state and continues to monitor the air quality through these standards.

Now, like all Americans, I know the need for clean air, but by passing this law it, in my opinion, allowed congress and the states to turn over their control of interstate and intrastate commerce to an agency headed by an unelected official, who is not even a cabinet head.

Later in 1972 congress passed the Clean Water Act in order to regulate the water quality standards. This includes navigable waters and any connecting water, including coastal waters, lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands and now mud puddles.

Again, congress and the states unconstitutionally abdicated their right and duties as defined by the Constitution to the executive branch.

These are just a few of instances where Congress and the States have basically violated the Constitution in favor of a centralized government. (SPOILER ALERT! On going in depth project research on this in work for posting later)

So I have to say to Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council and M's Schlafly, who are calling the TPP “another power grab” and pointing out the abdication of congressional powers to the executive branch.....

No Chit Sherlocks: Where have YOU Been? 

Semper Fi!

Further information can be found in:

Undermining the Constitution by Thomas James Norton

The Federalist

Federalist No. 9 - The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, page 38

Federalist No. 47 - The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained, pages 249 – 55

Federalist No. 51 - The same subject continued, with the same view, and concluded, pages 267–72

Federalist No. 66 - A further view of the constitution of the senate, in relation to its capacity, as a court for the trial of impeachments, pages 342– 44 

Federalist No. 71 - Concerning the constitution of the president: a gross attempt to misrepresent this part of the plan detected, page 371

Federalist No. 73 - The same view continued, in relation to the provision concerning support, and the power of the negative, pages 379 – 384

Federalist No. 75 - The same view continued, in relation to the power of making treaties, pages 387–90

Federalist No. 78 - A view of the constitution of the judicial department in relation to the tenure of good behaviour [sic], pages 402–408

Federalist No. 81 - A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the distribution of its authority, pages 418–419