There is now a non-partisan political group in Alachua County focusing on the fiscal responsibility of local government. Citizen Coalition is comprised of concerned citizens who want to take action to protect the taxpayers in our county. The group is currently concentrating on fighting the proposed road sales tax that is on the ballot for November 4. For those of you who want to contribute to their effort by donating a few dollars for signs opposing the tax please go to www.citizencoalitionpac.org or contact Debbie Martinez at debbiemartinez44
This is an opportunity to GET INVOLVED!!!
JUST DO IT!
Attention Alachua County voters! Many of you are already aware that Susan Baird, our county commissioner for limited government, is not running for reelection. Once the primaries were over this partisan race narrowed down to a Democrat candidate, Ken Cornell, and a Republican candidate, John Martin. Every county voter can vote for this distract seat! As is our custom Gainesville Tea Party will host a debate for this seat which is certain to reveal the differences between the two candidates and give our citizens another opportunity to get answers about the positions each candidate takes on the important issues. Those of you who have attended in the past know that we are not afraid of asking the tough questions. Let’s keep our tradition of hosting the largest turnout of all the candidates’ forums!
Mark your calendars! Encourage your friends and family to attend!
Gainesville Tea Party Debate for County Commission District 4
Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 7:00 PM
Countryside Baptist Church, 10926 NW 39th Ave, Gainesville, FL 32606
From Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jundal:
“Consider the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a new series of annual mandatory appropriations created by Obamacare. Over the past five years, the CDC has received just under $3 billion in transfers from the fund. Yet only 6 percent—$180 million—of that $3 billion went toward building epidemiology and laboratory capacity. Especially given the agency’s postwar roots as the Communicable Disease Center, one would think that “detecting and responding to infectious diseases and other public health threats” warrants a larger funding commitment.
Instead, the Obama administration has focused the CDC on other priorities. While protecting Americans from infectious diseases received only $180 million from the Prevention Fund, the community transformation grant program received nearly three times as much money—$517.3 million over the same five-year period.
The CDC’s website makes clear the objectives of community transformation grants. The program funds neighborhood interventions like “increasing access to healthy foods by supporting local farmers and developing neighborhood grocery stores,” or “promoting improvements in sidewalks and street lighting to make it safe and easy for people to walk and ride bikes.” Bike lanes and farmer’s markets may indeed help a community—but they would do little to combat dangerous diseases like Ebola, SARS or anthrax.”
Makes one wonder who really is behind this website ranking Alexa.com…
“How could every major alternative website that challenges the mainstream, establishment view of Washington and the world be experiencing a drop-off in readership while their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum are gaining readers? It appears unlikely, yet that’s exactly what happened last month, according to Alexa.com, which measures web traffic and ranks websites from the most popular to the least popular. Alexa rankings are important because they are among a handful of measurement tools used by companies when deciding where to spend their advertising dollars.”
The Drudge Report, WND, Breitbart, Fox News, the Blaze, Newsmax, CNSNEWS, the Daily Caller, Infowars and Natural News are all plunging in popularity, according to Alexa’s rankings. At the same time, pro-government sites like the Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, MSNBC, NPR.org and Democracy Now! are all rising in popularity, according to Alexa.
“Those critics who have been citing Barack Obama’s foreign policy fiascoes and disasters as evidence that he is incompetent may be overlooking the possibility that he has different priorities than the protection of the American people and America’s interests as a nation.”
As part of our commitment to get involved with elections outside of our districts I urge you to get active in candidate Carol Platt’s campaign who is challenging incumbent Alan Grayson for the 9th Congressional District in central Florida. Many of you are aware of the idiocy of Alan Grayson but to refresh your memory or get acquainted with his despicable antics go to http://
Orlando Sentinel Article showing differences on issues – http://touch.orlandosentinel.
From Carol Platt’s campaign:
“Nancy Pelosi has decided to stump for Grayson. The only reason she would be here is that he is vulnerable. Let’s show these people we can make a difference and get the grassroots folks mobilized. We need money but also volunteers to send emails, make calls and walk door-to-door in the District.”
Carol’s website is: www.carolplattforcongress.com
Amendment 1, which allows the State of Florida to use a percentage of tax dollars collected through the payment of documentary stamps required on any land transaction for more environmental property purchases by the state, will be on the ballot on November 4th.
From Daniel Peterson, Executive Director of Coalition for Property Rights:
“The fact is private owners are better stewards of land than government. Government should not be handed $18 billion of taxpayer money to acquire and control land.
The American dream embraces the principle of private citizens owning and using property as a protection against the potential tyranny of the state. Increased government ownership threatens that principle with no guarantees of better land stewardship.”
Mr. Peterson clearly explains all the reasons why citizens should vote NO on Amendment 1.
Amendment 2, which allows for more widespread use of medical marijuana in Florida, is being hotly debated. Until recently the polls seemed to indicate a majority of voters in favor of the initiative but that support appears to be slipping in these final weeks leading up to election day. We have provided this link which may help you decide how you want to vote as this is a social issue, not a fiscal issue.
Amendment 3, which allows for an outgoing Governor to appoint judges for positions that become vacant on inauguration day rather than the incoming Governor, is also being hotly debated. Opponents say that this is a simple power grab for the incumbent party (in this case the Republican party) but the same requirements would exist for any incumbent party no matter which party is in power. Hopefully the following links will help you decide how you want to vote.
UnFair Movie – Exposing the IRS
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
7 pm – one showing only
Gainesville Cinema 14 – Regal Theaters
Behind Archer Road Lowe’s
Please share this movie info with family, friends & associates and E-list
If you believe the IRS is not truthful with Americans
- · If you believe the IRS is over-reaching its authority
- · If you believe the IRS targets selected citizens/organizations for audit
- · If you believe the IRS is covering-up/hiding/deleting information requested by Congress
Has the IRS have become the American KGB?
Is it time to replace the current federal income tax system?
Set your partisanship aside for one night
to see this informative documentary movie.
The growing threat of losing our government to tyrannical global control has come to our doorstep with the new Center for Global Islam Studies. This article by Oleg Atbashian is very important as it echoes the warnings issued by Trevor Loudon, an expert in Russian and Islamic desires for global domination.
“Now, just as it was then, we’re up against a supremacist collectivist ideology whose goal is to establish a totalitarian utopian society on a global scale. The two deadly pipe dreams — global communism and the global caliphate — may have their differences, but in practical terms they both view the United States as the main obstacle in their quest of world domination. There is no reason why one can’t learn from the other’s vast experience in subverting this country.”
“The launch of a new Center for Global Islamic Studies at the extremely leftist University of Florida in Gainesville may have been planned as a purely academic affair, but the announcements in the local and national media, including AP and Fox News, exhibited more than a purely academic interest in this event.”
“The protest organizer, Randy McDaniels of ACT for America and the Counter-Terrorism Advisory Group, stated that our students certainly need to study Islam, as long as such studies are based on scientific objectivity and critical analysis. But the presence of John Esposito as the keynote speaker indicated that the new Global Islamic Studies Center was likely to go the way of many other universities, opening their doors and exposing our children to political Islam under the guise of education, with programs funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other state sponsors of Islamic fundamentalism.”
Hillsdale College has historically never accepted any federal funding and is the only institution of upper learning that holds steadfast to the principles of our Constitution. The following is long but very worth the read. I urge you to subscribe to Hillsdale’s monthly publication IMPRIMIS at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/subscriber/new.
PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including the American Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, the Notre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.
Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.
But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.
In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.
The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?
The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.
But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.
The Prerogative Power of Kings
The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.
Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.
Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.
Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.
These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal, supra-legal, or consolidated power.
The Rise of Absolutism in America
The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.
After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.
This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.
The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.
In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.
Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.
One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.
Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.
As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.
The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.
* * *
In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.
Copyright © 2014 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
Romney or Jeb in 2012? Further proof that Republicans work at losing elections…
But that was not always true…
Illegal immigration policies a plot against citizens by our president, senate and congress…
Robert Kennedy and Leonardo DiCaprio’s giant hypocrisy: climate change fraud…
And from Breitbart.com…
Seattle Passes Laws to Keep Residents From Wasting Food
The City of Seattle just passed a new trash ordinance that would fine residents and businesses for throwing away too much food.
Plan to attend this workshop which is the next stage in ultimately transforming all travel corridors in the county to two lanes. THAT IS WHAT MULTI MODAL MEANS!!! Two vehicle lanes with bicycle lanes and five to ten foot sidewalks. And eight groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, are supporting yet another tax for roads? This workshop is your opportunity to comment!
Gainesville Regional Utilities Administration
301 SE 4th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida
Thursday, October 2, 2014
3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The purpose of this study is to identify specific multimodal projects along University Avenue (State Road 26) from Gale Lemerand Drive to Waldo Road that can be programmed for implementation by the Florida Department of Transportation in its Five-Year Work program. Part of this project is to document existing conditions within this corridor and data collection for bicycle, pedestrian and transit users.
Many thanks to our Congressman Ted Yoho for his NAY vote on the Continuing Resolution, a vote for fiscal responsibility! He is standing firm for our principles and we are very fortunate to have him represent us! Please read his statement below.
“Sep 17, 2014
Washington, DC – Congressman Ted S. Yoho (R-FL-03) voted against H.J. Res. 124 – Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015. The continuing resolution provides funding for federal agencies at current fiscal year 2014 levels until December 11, 2014. Congressman Yoho also voted against an amendment to H.J. Res 124, which would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment to appropriately- vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals. Congressman Yoho gave the following statement after his votes.
“I could not, in good faith, vote for a continuing resolution that is basically kicking the fiscal can down the road. The House has been doing its job, passing seven appropriations bills that would fund the Federal Government. These bills are sitting in Harry Reid’s Senate collecting dust. Because the Senate is failing to do their job, we are forced to pass a resolution to keep the government running for 72 days? There is no reason we should have reached this point. It is unacceptable.
“I also could not support the amendment funding the Syrian opposition forces, because it does not address the true threat – the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Instead, it creates the potential to involve the U.S. more deeply in the Syrian civil war. Furthermore, the amendment was too vague in how it would vet the Free Syrian Army members who receive our equipment; much less what equipment they would receive.
“Make no mistake, ISIL must be stopped. However, I felt the amendment will just repeat a history in which we fund, arm and train fighters because we believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend only to see those supposed friends later turn those weapons and training on us. Instead, I believe the President should seek new Congressional authority that is narrow in focus, duration and scope coupled with a strategy that will defeat ISIL and not embroil the U.S. in a seemingly endless, larger conflict. A component of this strategy must be border security. I am introducing a security bill to aid in the prevention of people with western passports with known affiliations or ties to foreign terrorist groups from entering the U.S. The world has a moral obligation to stop such evil. An evil, if left unchecked, will eventually wind up on our shores.”