The Deep State (1 Viewer)

J

jpl458

Well-known member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:29
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,127
Being of a curious sort, I wanted tind the origin of the term Deep State. I found that it seems to have first appeared in Turkey. Here is a definition that I found:
A deep state[1] is a type of governance made up of potentially secret and unauthorized networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals. In popular usage, the term carries overwhelmingly negative connotations.[2]

During the presidency of Donald Trump, deep-state communication has been used in the United States to describe the "permanent government" of entrenched career bureaucrats or civil servants acting in accordance with the mandates of their agencies and congressional statutes when seen as in conflict with the administration.[3]

From the last paragraph: If you are not a Trump Loyalist, and you are in government, then you are part of the deep state. After all my years of experience and education, I thought dissent was a good thing. A part of Democracy. In project 2025, where it is stated the conservatives want to have some 50,00 civil service employees fired if Trump is reelected, and put non experts into positions that keep the water clean, roads and travel safe, and regulate the safety of our food. I also learned that persons should be careful about what they wish for.
 
jpl458 said:
In project 2025, where it is stated the conservatives want to have some 50,00 civil service employees fired if Trump is reelected,
Click to expand...
So your saying there is a deep state?

It always depends on whose ox is gored, right?
 
No, the term was used in this country by the Trump folk to describe those in government that didn't agree with Trump. It's a made up term. I have a relative that is a GS 23 (that's a super grade) in the goverment, and he laughs at the concept, especially when his Deep State ID falls out of his pocket. From what I understand, he is in charge of the childrens rotisserie in the basement of the secret pizza parlor, where they keep Hunter's laptop, and Hillary's secret server.
 
A bit more seriously, the Deep State includes something that is a by-product of a possibly well intentioned, but totally wrong, SCOTUS decision, the one that led to the "Chevron 'Deference' Doctrine." The Chevron Deference issue is that it allows executive-branch offices to "interpret" the laws that Congress actually passed to reach totally novel rules. Some of the biggest furor arises from ATF and their firearm rules and from the EPA and their rules on what constitutes a wetland. The Chevron Deference doctrine essentially INVITES violations of the "Separation of Powers" clause in the constitution. And this makes the executive branch offices that make these novel rules into Deep State offices.

There is currently a case scheduled for later this year for SCOTUS to consider overturning the Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling that is the origin of Chevron deference. If it IS overturned, there will probably be a humongous surge in lawsuits seeking to overturn a LOT of actions that have originated from the side-effects of the original ruling. From a Cornell University web site, there is this extract:

The Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.
Click to expand...

The actual test case comes from Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries placing a requirement to place a monitor (a person who will enforce regulatory compliance) on a fishing boat at the expense of the fishing company, but the person's salary would almost automatically make the fishing company go bankrupt since that monitor doesn't contribute to productivity and in fact can impair it. Such companies apparently have a low profit margin. The rule was created by DWF essentially by fiat. Congress certainly DID NOT specify that rule. DWF created it out of whole cloth, as the saying goes.
 
I have no idea of where the concept of the "deep state" originated. I would speculate that it is an evolutionary concept arising out of the term "military/industrial/complex" that originated in Eisenhower's farewell address (1961). I would also direct you to this thread: The Deep State Exposed II (AKA Military/Industrial Complex).

I am surprised though that you did not speak of Supreme Leader Biden as being worthy of receiving a Noble prize for successfully implementing the "deep state" over those evil Republican obstructionists. Biden is now intending to implement a version of the Young Pioneers to help all US residents with complying with climate change mandates. FACT SHEET: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Launches American Climate Corps to Train Young People in Clean Energy, Conservation, and Climate Resilience Skills, Create Good-Paying Jobs and Tackle the Climate Crisis. Reeducation camps will also be constructed to assist those who are slow learners.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
A bit more seriously, the Deep State includes something that is a by-product of a possibly well intentioned, but totally wrong, SCOTUS decision, the one that led to the "Chevron 'Deference' Doctrine." The Chevron Deference issue is that it allows executive-branch offices to "interpret" the laws that Congress actually passed to reach totally novel rules. Some of the biggest furor arises from ATF and their firearm rules and from the EPA and their rules on what constitutes a wetland. The Chevron Deference doctrine essentially INVITES violations of the "Separation of Powers" clause in the constitution. And this makes the executive branch offices that make these novel rules into Deep State offices.

There is currently a case scheduled for later this year for SCOTUS to consider overturning the Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling that is the origin of Chevron deference. If it IS overturned, there will probably be a humongous surge in lawsuits seeking to overturn a LOT of actions that have originated from the side-effects of the original ruling. From a Cornell University web site, there is this extract:



The actual test case comes from Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries placing a requirement to place a monitor (a person who will enforce regulatory compliance) on a fishing boat at the expense of the fishing company, but the person's salary would almost automatically make the fishing company go bankrupt since that monitor doesn't contribute to productivity and in fact can impair it. Such companies apparently have a low profit margin. The rule was created by DWF essentially by fiat. Congress certainly DID NOT specify that rule. DWF created it out of whole cloth, as the saying goes.
Click to expand...
If Trump replaces 50,000 civil service people, isn't that a deep state as well? Just curious.
 
I just read this:
This is not a radical idea. Implementing health, safety, environmental, financial, and consumer-protection laws requires a great deal of day-to-day legal interpretation which depends significantly on subject-matter expertise — questions such as what makes a drug “safe and effective,” what constitutes “critical habitat,” what qualifies as an “unfair or deceptive” trade practice, and countless other questions big and small. Chevron says, if Congress has been clear about the statute’s meaning, that’s the end of the matter. But if Congress has been ambiguous or silent, the expert agency’s reasonable reading should govern.

The two cases being argued raise the same issue: whether a longstanding fisheries conservation law that clearly authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels can be read to require that their daily rate be paid by the owners of the vessels. In essence, if Congress has not addressed the question of who pays, should the court defer to the agency’s view?

The court didn’t take these cases because it cares about fisheries conservation, though. They are a vehicle for the larger question: Who decides when laws aren’t clear — courts or agencies?

“There is a chance the court will jettison Chevron altogether and declare that the courts must decide all questions relating to statutory interpretation. That sounds eminently sensible on its face, but simply cannot work in practice.”
Click to expand...
 
jpl458 said:
Who decides when laws aren’t clear — courts or agencies?
Click to expand...

Courts. Not even a moment of hesitation. The way the system is set up, when a law becomes unclear, it is up to Congress to do something about it. Until then, other rules kick in. When there is a potential criminal charge and that lack of clarity kicks in, there is a rule called "Lenity" that says "tie goes to the citizen, not the government." Agencies have a vested interest in ALWAYS deciding in a way that gives them more power - and adds grounds to hire more civil servants, which is perfectly in line with Democratic "big government."

There is no more fearsome sentence than "We're from the government and we're here to help you." Don't accept help from agencies until you see the teeth behind that help.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Courts. Not even a moment of hesitation. The way the system is set up, when a law becomes unclear, it is up to Congress to do something about it. Until then, other rules kick in. When there is a potential criminal charge and that lack of clarity kicks in, there is a rule called "Lenity" that says "tie goes to the citizen, not the government." Agencies have a vested interest in ALWAYS deciding in a way that gives them more power - and adds grounds to hire more civil servants, which is perfectly in line with Democratic "big government."

There is no more fearsome sentence than "We're from the government and we're here to help you." Don't accept help from agencies until you see the teeth behind that help.
Click to expand...
It's not just the Democrates. I believe that during the Nixon administration a government official hired a guy, gave him no mission, and an office. He had nothing to do. Six months latert the official got a requisition to hire 2 assistants for the original do nothing hire. Call it Government Entropy. Parkinson's Law states that Facilities expand to use all available rescources. That the short version.
 
It's definitely NOT just the democrates
 
I watched the democrat's defense of why Joe Biden unlawfully stored classified documents in various locations while being a Senator, Vice President, private citizen, and President.

There excuse seemed to be whatabout Trump....:LOL::LOL:
 
The diference is Biden cooperated, and Trump did not.:sick:
 
Are you saying Trump is innocent, or that they are both guilty. Were you in the military?
 
jpl458 said:
Just asking. are they both guilty or both innocent. Its a binary question with 2 bits. There are 4 options.
Click to expand...
Biden not only stored classified documents in 6 separate locations, he shared classified documents with his ghost writer. I would think you might be alarmed at these revelations. Oh yea, I forgot he cooperated... :LOL: :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The Deep State
Replies
9
Views
799
Isaac
Isaac
J
Another big lie
Replies
9
Views
288
Jon
Jon
J
When does the winning srart?
2
Replies
36
Views
1,287
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
J
D Day thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
530
Mike Krailo
Mike Krailo
J
The real J D Vance
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
1,091
moke123
moke123

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom