[joshstrange]

> At the same time, what is the standard by which it should be decided what is allowed and not allowed if not laws, which are passed by an elected Congress?

And that might be a compelling argument if the rule of law hadn’t been throw out the window. If secret courts didn’t exist. If “laws” couldn’t be twisted into pretzel or just outright ignored. If things, oh you know, like the name of the department he invokes throughout this article, could only be changed by the elected Congress instead of unilaterally changed by a mad king. Yeah, maybe then your article would hold water.

What an incredibly naive take on the current state of affairs.