Davin News Server

On Fri, 23 May 2025 12:12:17 -0700,  Alan says...  

> > How so?

> How about an executive order in direct violation of your constitution?

Yeah... how about it? 

How many laws did your faggot of a Prime Minister break, when he froze bank accounts?

How about O B A M A?

If Trump and Co. are "allegedly" in violation of our Constitution... we can argue all day long, but it doesn't matter, unless the 
Supreme Court makes rulings.

Just a few more:

President Obama's decision not to subject the Iran nuclear treaty to a Senate vote?

Engaging in the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap without notifying Congress?

There are many more, but...

https://i.imgur.com/jWr1f9o.mp4


 
Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") 
list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as "Tea Party, " "Patriots, " and 
"Israel"; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating 
about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois 
Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress-and then being allowed to peacefully 
retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.


Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of 
Montana a letter that became a national "blueprint" for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on "unwelcome" 
speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment 
before trial, and convict based on a mere 'more likely than not" standard.



The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant 
criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, 
with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can't give the agency 
such authority. Section 111 doesn't permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when 
those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice 
Scalia's last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the 
rule).



The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency 
insists that the rule doesn't affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the 
rule's definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate "waters of the 
United States" (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a 
sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and "navigable waters." The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to 
give EPA power far beyond waters that are "navigable" by any stretch of the word's definition. Litigation is ongoing.



Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, 
forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.



EPA's Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide 
emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the 
Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean 
Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of 
Congress.





===============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike 
of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into 
three distinct phases or stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, 
as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting 
solely of hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk opposition from liberals to anything and everything 
Trump does. If Trump announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would suggest he was up to something 
nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received 
positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was 
a punch line for late-night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first coined by the late conservative columnist Charles 
Krauthammer back in 2003. The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people 
in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."