Open Sedition By The Administrative State And Its Corporate Lapdogs In The Media And Congress: Either The Constitution Rules And Continues To Exist In Force - Or The Administrative State Does

But not both, they are fundamentally at odds with each other and have been since the Revolution of 1937, a bloodless coup in which Constitutional government has been reduced to a powerless sham...

Robert Malone writes: “A Supreme Court with members committed to states’ rights doctrines, willing and able to implement measures to hobble federal regulatory agency powers, just might be able to succeed in kneecapping federal authority and bringing the hounds of the Administrative State back under control. Maybe. It we are lucky.

Yes, congratulations Mr. Mazza, you win the prize. That is the true objective. The corporate press may bay at the moon, howling about this or that decision, but what is really going on here is leashing the out-of-control, unelected Administrative State, and bringing it to heel. And forcing Congress to do its job, and to stop delegating responsibility for setting policy to an unelected bureaucracy that has morphed into a corporatist inverted totalitarian state Mastiff.

I suggest that the separation anxiety, the underlying cognitive dissonance causing the press to howl and the administrative state to squirm, is precisely that. Separating an unelected bureaucracy from its sense of entitlement. Spoiled and entitled, the Administrative State is having a temper tantrum, and the corporate press is giving voice to its anguished cries.”

Howling at the Moon

The Administrative State exists without any Constitutional basis, and has, since its inception. It has subverted Constitutional process since then, and now strives to overtly overthrow Constitutional governance. It is the living embodiment of sedition, and it itself must be overthrown and abolished at all levels.

"The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects of our modern government chose the administrative state, and their choice has stuck. ... The United States Congress today effectively exercises general legislative powers, in contravention of the constitutional principle of limited powers. Moreover, Congress frequently delegates that general legislative authority to administrative agencies, in contravention of Article I. Furthermore, those agencies are not always subject to the direct control of the President, in contravention of Article II. In addition, those agencies sometimes exercise the judicial power, in contravention of Article III. Finally, those agencies typically concentrate legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the same institution, in simultaneous contravention of Articles I, II, and III. In short, the modern administrative state openly flouts almost every important structural precept of the American constitutional order." The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State, Gary S. Lawson, Boston University School of Law

A contemporaneous writing, from 1938, was prescient of the current situation:

“The test came in the first one hundred days. No matter how carefully a revolution may have been planned there is bound to be a crucial time. That comes when the actual seizure of power is taking place. In this case certain steps were necessary. They were difficult and daring steps. But more than that, they had to be taken in a certain sequence, with forethought and precision of timing. One out of place might have been fatal. What happened was that one followed another in exactly the right order, not one out of time or out of place.

Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse. The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention. The end held constantly in view was power.

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent. At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible—of course.

But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signifiers. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late, few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law . . . so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within [and yet fundamentally opposed to] the Constitution and within the forms of law." https://cdn.mises.org/Peoples%20Pottage_2.pdf