01/09/2017

Obama Is Using The Russians As An Excuse To Expand Federal Power Over Elections

John Fund, National Review

A decentralized election system makes large-scale hacking nearly impossible. We should keep it that way.

The Obama Administration is leaving office much like the way it came in — by exploiting perceived crises.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s just-named chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top CEOs in November 2008 while his boss was still president-elect. Since then a slew of constitutionally dubious executive orders, presidential emergencies, and rushed legislation have characterized the Obama presidency. Now he is leaving office by issuing a blizzard of “midnight regulations” and edicts.

One of the most troublesome came last Friday and gave the federal government the power to begin centralizing our election systems. The Constitution explicitly gives states the power to set the “times, manner and places of holding elections.”

But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson used the excuse of Friday’s release of a report on Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee to declare that state and local voting systems will be designated as “pieces of critical infrastructure” so that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can protect them from hackers.

His move — coming just 15 days before President Obama leaves office — led many experts to question both its wisdom and its constitutionality. “While the federal government has the general power to protect the nation’s cyber infrastructure, it cannot intrude into areas of state sovereignty without clear constitutional mandate,” John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley, told CNSNews.com.

“There is no federal power to control or secure elections. Each state administers its own elections, restricted only by constitutional protections for voting rights,” agreed Illya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. “It may make sense for states to request federal support here, but it would set a dangerous precedent for a federal agency to unilaterally take over state electoral processes.”

Secretary Johnson’s decision sparked outrage from many of those who are most knowledgeable about our election system — the 50 secretaries of state who, along with local officials, run the election process. Even Johnson admitted that “many of them are opposed to this designation.” And how.

Read full article



You May Also Like:

GOP Tax Bill: A Look At The Finalized Brackets Fox Business

No, GOP Tax Cuts Won't Cause The Economy To Overheat; Here's Why Investor’s Business Daily

After Mysterious 'Insurance Policy' Text, Will Justice Department Reveal More On FBI Agent Bounced From Mueller Probe? Byron York, Washington Examiner

Mueller Should Ask For Help Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal

Who's To Blame For The Moore Fiasco? John McCormack, The Weekly Standard

The Media Are Killing Themselves With Botched Anti-Trump Reporting David Harsanyi , New York Post

Trump Is Fighting The FBI Old-Guard — But Watch How The FBI Academy Reacts When He Takes The Stage [Watch] Benny Johnson, The Daily Caller

Bombshell: Lisa Bloom Sought 6-Figure Payoffs For Donald Trump Accusers John Nolte, Breitbart

Was Paul Ryan The Target Of A Politico Hit Job? Monica Showalter, American Thinker

Constant Hysterics Damage Our Democracy David French, National Review

Why Criminalizing Sexual Harassment Fosters Witch Hunts Maureen Mullarkey, The Federalist

The Case For Alternative Currencies Eric Grover, City Journal

Net Neutrality Isn't Neutral At All Kyle S. Swan, Foundation for Economic Education

Toxic Femininity, Redux Scott McKay, The American Spectator

'Jingle Bells' Rooted In Racism, Boston University Professor Says [Watch] Caleb Parke, Fox News

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Join Our Email List



Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

In Search Of History

The Reagan Tax Cuts Worked

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

 

-- Daniel J. Mitchell,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.12%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 21.7%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central November Year-to-Year: 2.04% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.8%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]