From the speech: The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.
Barr thinks that Congress has eroded the power of the Executive contrary to the will of the Framers.
Passing strange that he never mentions "agencies" which "regulate" in the name of the Executive, eh? One could argue that the Regulators have in fact eroded the powers of Congress.
And yes, I know: Congress deliberately writes vague laws precisely so that Regulators can impose their will because Congress is lazy and acts only in the interests of Congress.
If there's a declaration to be made, I submit that it should be another Declaration of Independence from Mordor on the Potomac.
I hasten to add that in general, Barr's speech fits neatly with his rather ugly behavior around Ruby Ridge and his perfervid defense of the assassin Feeb Horiuchi.
One could argue that the Regulators have in fact eroded the powers of Congress.
No, it's the courts who've done that, with their Chevron and Skidmore deference sewage. Which also illustrate that third branch's voluntary surrender of its status as a coequal branch.
Congress deliberately writes vague laws precisely so that Regulators can impose their will because Congress is lazy and acts only in the interests of Congress.
Congress are a bunch of puppets. Do people realize what it means to be caught on Epstein's little trips and blackmailed in other ways via being in DC?
Do they really?
What it means is that whatever you were before you came to DC... you are now the Deep State's sock puppet and tool after you come to DC. Because they have the goods.
Refer to Petraeus. Even the best of you are weaklings before the Might of the Deep State and its far superior technologies. Yes yes, I know many of you have bunkers and survival off grid whatevers.
That's not exactly a strategic winner in war though.
This is why Bush II blocked stem cell research. His secret society, Skull whatever, probably knew and may not have been entirely onboard with Cabal type rituals.
This is also why I don't exactly believe human claims that they can stop the civil war or drain the swamp. This is normal human behavior, as predicted by me.
If there is something humans can do to counter my argument, then bring it.
Humanity and Americans are slaves to the Deep State. You are nothing more than cattle to be harvested.
Dad29, interesting. I looked around to see what you were talking about. I never looked too much into Ruby Ridge, so I don't know what to think about the contrary positions offered. This quote from the article linked on your blog seems relevant:
In addition, former FBI Director William H. Webster and four former U.S. attorneys general--Griffin P. Bell, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Richard L. Thornburgh and William P. Barr--filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting immunity from prosecution for Horiuchi.
Webster, now a private attorney in Washington, applauded the ruling, saying that if the case had gone the other way it would have been an untenable precedent--subjecting federal law enforcement agents to different standards of conduct in different states.
“The sniper’s job in law enforcement requires split-second judgment that must depend exclusively on his/her federal training and policy,” the brief for Webster and the former attorneys general stressed. “To subject the performance of that function to second-guessing in the context of a state criminal action is to severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”
That seems a reasonable standard in general, though I'm not sure if the Ruby Ridge case fits it in the specifics.
Looking at some specifics of the Ruby Ridge case from the same article:
The siege at Ruby Ridge began when U.S. marshals seeking to arrest Randy Weaver came upon Harris, Weaver and his 14-year-old son, Sammy, and their dog Striker at an intersection near the Weaver property. A marshal fired, killing the dog--prompting Sammy to return fire. Soon thereafter, another marshal shot and killed the teenager. In an ensuing gun battle, U.S. Marshal Michael Degan was shot and killed.
I think shooting the dog was a mistake, and I think it's a mistake to allow for that as a matter of policy. If the dog charges, OK, but just because a dog is present should not give officers an excuse for shooting it. But the boy shouldn't have shot at the cops, either.
That day, the federal law enforcement agents created special rules of engagement providing that “any armed adult male observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin could and should be killed.”
That seems pretty outrageous, although with one of their own dead, maybe understandable. Anyone know if this kind of policy would have been normal? Or was this an ad hoc policy adopted this one time?
In any case, if Harris was armed, then Horiuchi was following set policy by trying to shoot him. (As bad as I think that policy was.)
The dissenting judge, Kozinski, makes a good point:
“It is . . . immensely troubling that the majority today holds--for the first time anywhere--that law enforcement agents may kill someone simply to keep him from taking up a defensive position,” Kozinski wrote.
Yeah, their 'killed armed men' policy was a bad one.
On the other hand, the amicus from the 4 former attorneys general (including Barr) at least makes sense. I don't know if it's the right position in the final analysis, but it is understandable.
Going back through Barr's speech, he does in fact mention administrative regulation:
Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.
I agree with him. It is mostly Congress's fault that executive agencies have law-making powers. I also agree that Congress has at times done what it could to insulate executive agencies from presidential authority.
I whole-heartedly agree with Barr that the Judicial Branch has gone way beyond its rightful authority, both in regard to executive power and to the powers of the state governments.
In general, I think this is a good, informative speech and I agree with its main points, but I already thought some of these ideas were correct before I read the speech. The extent to which the "resistance" is resisting Trump is pretty norm-shredding.
I did not know that "As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times."
I'm guessing you know that Horiuchi killed Weaver's wife, who was holding (only) their baby and standing in the doorway of their home.
Further, I don't know about "....different standards of conduct in different States......" as it relates specifically to Horiuchi's act.
Without intimate knowledge of the murder/manslaughter laws in every State, I'm reasonably sure that NO State allows killing an unarmed person who is standing still.
IOW their statement is babble.
BTW, Kozinski was a Reagan appointee. Reagan also nominated "make up your own world!!" Kennedy.........but Kozinski appears to have been indisposed to Government pushing the envelope in its own favor; he also slapped down a Fed prosecution in another (unrelated) case.
In any case, I no longer trust Gummint; Reagan's 'trust but verify' applies to more than just Russia.
Well, the same bullet that killed Weaver's wife also hit Horiuchi's claimed target, Harris. It is quite possible that Horiuchi aimed at Harris and honestly didn't realize the wife was in the line of fire. I wasn't there and I don't know what he saw through his scope. In general, I defer to the man in the arena rather than the Monday-night quarterbacks who can make the perfect call every time.
Again, I think the 'shoot all armed men' policy was bad and the FBI clearly made a number of errors. I think, like Waco, this situation could have been handled much better.
Like you, I also don't automatically trust the agents of government, and I think that not only police but government immunity in general should be scaled back. And government power in general.
All that said, we seem to have two options. 1, Horiuchi intentionally killed a woman standing still holding a baby and only accidentally hit Harris, or 2, he followed protocol and targeted Harris without realizing he would hit Weaver's wife. I think #2 is more plausible.
Anyway, you may not like Barr for his actions back then, but they don't really bear on his recent speech, which I think was good.
NB: For anyone following along, Dad29 wrote about this here: https://dad29.blogspot.com/2019/01/wm-barr-statist-extraordinaire.html And the article I'm referencing is one he linked, here: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-15-mn-41294-story.html
About the American Conservative article by James Bovard you linked, this seems a bit shady:
After Randy Weaver, an outspoken white separatist living on a mountaintop in northern Idaho, was entrapped by an undercover federal agent, U.S. marshals trespassed on Weaver’s land and killed his 14-year-old son, Sammy. The following day, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi killed his wife, Vicki, as she was standing in the cabin doorway. Horiuchi had previously shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of the cabin. The suspects were never given a warning or a chance to surrender and had taken no action against FBI agents. Weaver survived.
Well, Sammy shot at the marshals, and after Sammy was killed, Weaver and/or Harris killed a deputy marshal, William Degan (it's not clear from the news report I read who shot the deputy). Bovard also doesn't mention that the same round that killed Weaver's wife hit Harris.
Either Bovard didn't do his homework, or he ignored some very relevant facts and can't be trusted to report honestly.
When the wife opened the door for her husband, the sniper shot through the husband into the door. Thus the psychopath pretty much knew the bullet would be likely to create additional casualties and didn't care one way or another.
They weren't good enough to shoot a moving target.
Same snipers pardoned or immune at Ruby Ridge, was at Waco 1. This is because the government only had a few kill teams and death squads back then they could count on. THey have a A LOT more now.
I mentioned Ruby Ridge some time ago, but I suppose nobody really understood what I was going on about.
He actually did hit his moving target. As anyone who's shot at moving targets knows, you need to focus on the target to hit it but that makes the background a blur. Since he hit the target, it's a good bet the background was just a blur to him and he didn't really know where that bullet was going after it went through Harris.
Was that negligent? Yeah, maybe so. Were the ROE rotten? Yes, definitely. But he was following the ROE, which was his job.
Also, a kill team / death squad wouldn't have left anyone alive.
From Barr's speech, a portion with which I wholly agree:
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
It appears that the Left is foolishly comfortable with pushing the envelope. The "resistance" is approaching the stage of martyrdom, I fear.
15 comments:
From the speech: The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.
Barr thinks that Congress has eroded the power of the Executive contrary to the will of the Framers.
Passing strange that he never mentions "agencies" which "regulate" in the name of the Executive, eh? One could argue that the Regulators have in fact eroded the powers of Congress.
And yes, I know: Congress deliberately writes vague laws precisely so that Regulators can impose their will because Congress is lazy and acts only in the interests of Congress.
If there's a declaration to be made, I submit that it should be another Declaration of Independence from Mordor on the Potomac.
I hasten to add that in general, Barr's speech fits neatly with his rather ugly behavior around Ruby Ridge and his perfervid defense of the assassin Feeb Horiuchi.
One could argue that the Regulators have in fact eroded the powers of Congress.
No, it's the courts who've done that, with their Chevron and Skidmore deference sewage. Which also illustrate that third branch's voluntary surrender of its status as a coequal branch.
Eric Hines
I think I would have been briefed by now on any "revolutions".
Congress deliberately writes vague laws precisely so that Regulators can impose their will because Congress is lazy and acts only in the interests of Congress.
Congress are a bunch of puppets. Do people realize what it means to be caught on Epstein's little trips and blackmailed in other ways via being in DC?
Do they really?
What it means is that whatever you were before you came to DC... you are now the Deep State's sock puppet and tool after you come to DC. Because they have the goods.
Refer to Petraeus. Even the best of you are weaklings before the Might of the Deep State and its far superior technologies. Yes yes, I know many of you have bunkers and survival off grid whatevers.
That's not exactly a strategic winner in war though.
https://youtu.be/HyVQbwgJMU4
This is why Bush II blocked stem cell research. His secret society, Skull whatever, probably knew and may not have been entirely onboard with Cabal type rituals.
This is also why I don't exactly believe human claims that they can stop the civil war or drain the swamp. This is normal human behavior, as predicted by me.
If there is something humans can do to counter my argument, then bring it.
Humanity and Americans are slaves to the Deep State. You are nothing more than cattle to be harvested.
Dad29, interesting. I looked around to see what you were talking about. I never looked too much into Ruby Ridge, so I don't know what to think about the contrary positions offered. This quote from the article linked on your blog seems relevant:
In addition, former FBI Director William H. Webster and four former U.S. attorneys general--Griffin P. Bell, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Richard L. Thornburgh and William P. Barr--filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting immunity from prosecution for Horiuchi.
Webster, now a private attorney in Washington, applauded the ruling, saying that if the case had gone the other way it would have been an untenable precedent--subjecting federal law enforcement agents to different standards of conduct in different states.
“The sniper’s job in law enforcement requires split-second judgment that must depend exclusively on his/her federal training and policy,” the brief for Webster and the former attorneys general stressed. “To subject the performance of that function to second-guessing in the context of a state criminal action is to severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”
That seems a reasonable standard in general, though I'm not sure if the Ruby Ridge case fits it in the specifics.
Looking at some specifics of the Ruby Ridge case from the same article:
The siege at Ruby Ridge began when U.S. marshals seeking to arrest Randy Weaver came upon Harris, Weaver and his 14-year-old son, Sammy, and their dog Striker at an intersection near the Weaver property. A marshal fired, killing the dog--prompting Sammy to return fire. Soon thereafter, another marshal shot and killed the teenager. In an ensuing gun battle, U.S. Marshal Michael Degan was shot and killed.
I think shooting the dog was a mistake, and I think it's a mistake to allow for that as a matter of policy. If the dog charges, OK, but just because a dog is present should not give officers an excuse for shooting it. But the boy shouldn't have shot at the cops, either.
That day, the federal law enforcement agents created special rules of engagement providing that “any armed adult male observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin could and should be killed.”
That seems pretty outrageous, although with one of their own dead, maybe understandable. Anyone know if this kind of policy would have been normal? Or was this an ad hoc policy adopted this one time?
In any case, if Harris was armed, then Horiuchi was following set policy by trying to shoot him. (As bad as I think that policy was.)
The dissenting judge, Kozinski, makes a good point:
“It is . . . immensely troubling that the majority today holds--for the first time anywhere--that law enforcement agents may kill someone simply to keep him from taking up a defensive position,” Kozinski wrote.
Yeah, their 'killed armed men' policy was a bad one.
On the other hand, the amicus from the 4 former attorneys general (including Barr) at least makes sense. I don't know if it's the right position in the final analysis, but it is understandable.
Going back through Barr's speech, he does in fact mention administrative regulation:
Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.
I agree with him. It is mostly Congress's fault that executive agencies have law-making powers. I also agree that Congress has at times done what it could to insulate executive agencies from presidential authority.
I whole-heartedly agree with Barr that the Judicial Branch has gone way beyond its rightful authority, both in regard to executive power and to the powers of the state governments.
In general, I think this is a good, informative speech and I agree with its main points, but I already thought some of these ideas were correct before I read the speech. The extent to which the "resistance" is resisting Trump is pretty norm-shredding.
I did not know that "As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times."
That's craziness.
I'm guessing you know that Horiuchi killed Weaver's wife, who was holding (only) their baby and standing in the doorway of their home.
Further, I don't know about "....different standards of conduct in different States......" as it relates specifically to Horiuchi's act.
Without intimate knowledge of the murder/manslaughter laws in every State, I'm reasonably sure that NO State allows killing an unarmed person who is standing still.
IOW their statement is babble.
BTW, Kozinski was a Reagan appointee. Reagan also nominated "make up your own world!!" Kennedy.........but Kozinski appears to have been indisposed to Government pushing the envelope in its own favor; he also slapped down a Fed prosecution in another (unrelated) case.
In any case, I no longer trust Gummint; Reagan's 'trust but verify' applies to more than just Russia.
Well, the same bullet that killed Weaver's wife also hit Horiuchi's claimed target, Harris. It is quite possible that Horiuchi aimed at Harris and honestly didn't realize the wife was in the line of fire. I wasn't there and I don't know what he saw through his scope. In general, I defer to the man in the arena rather than the Monday-night quarterbacks who can make the perfect call every time.
Again, I think the 'shoot all armed men' policy was bad and the FBI clearly made a number of errors. I think, like Waco, this situation could have been handled much better.
Like you, I also don't automatically trust the agents of government, and I think that not only police but government immunity in general should be scaled back. And government power in general.
All that said, we seem to have two options. 1, Horiuchi intentionally killed a woman standing still holding a baby and only accidentally hit Harris, or 2, he followed protocol and targeted Harris without realizing he would hit Weaver's wife. I think #2 is more plausible.
Anyway, you may not like Barr for his actions back then, but they don't really bear on his recent speech, which I think was good.
NB: For anyone following along, Dad29 wrote about this here: https://dad29.blogspot.com/2019/01/wm-barr-statist-extraordinaire.html
And the article I'm referencing is one he linked, here:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-15-mn-41294-story.html
About the American Conservative article by James Bovard you linked, this seems a bit shady:
After Randy Weaver, an outspoken white separatist living on a mountaintop in northern Idaho, was entrapped by an undercover federal agent, U.S. marshals trespassed on Weaver’s land and killed his 14-year-old son, Sammy. The following day, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi killed his wife, Vicki, as she was standing in the cabin doorway. Horiuchi had previously shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of the cabin. The suspects were never given a warning or a chance to surrender and had taken no action against FBI agents. Weaver survived.
Well, Sammy shot at the marshals, and after Sammy was killed, Weaver and/or Harris killed a deputy marshal, William Degan (it's not clear from the news report I read who shot the deputy). Bovard also doesn't mention that the same round that killed Weaver's wife hit Harris.
Either Bovard didn't do his homework, or he ignored some very relevant facts and can't be trusted to report honestly.
When the wife opened the door for her husband, the sniper shot through the husband into the door. Thus the psychopath pretty much knew the bullet would be likely to create additional casualties and didn't care one way or another.
They weren't good enough to shoot a moving target.
Same snipers pardoned or immune at Ruby Ridge, was at Waco 1. This is because the government only had a few kill teams and death squads back then they could count on. THey have a A LOT more now.
I mentioned Ruby Ridge some time ago, but I suppose nobody really understood what I was going on about.
He actually did hit his moving target. As anyone who's shot at moving targets knows, you need to focus on the target to hit it but that makes the background a blur. Since he hit the target, it's a good bet the background was just a blur to him and he didn't really know where that bullet was going after it went through Harris.
Was that negligent? Yeah, maybe so. Were the ROE rotten? Yes, definitely. But he was following the ROE, which was his job.
Also, a kill team / death squad wouldn't have left anyone alive.
From Barr's speech, a portion with which I wholly agree:
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
It appears that the Left is foolishly comfortable with pushing the envelope. The "resistance" is approaching the stage of martyrdom, I fear.
Post a Comment