Reposted by deb
Some 💩 went down at SSA today, and it’s not great so let’s talk about it 🫠 TLDR version: effective 7/3, 40-50% of the CSR (customer service rep) staff will be reassigned to answering the national 1800#. This decision was made without input from any regional, area, or teleservice center leadership.
![On his deathbed, the victorious Pasteur is said to have recanted,
"Béchamp was right," declaring,
"the microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything."44 Miasma theory survives in marginalized, yet vibrant, pockets among integrative and functional medicine practition-ers. And burgeoning science documenting the critical role of the microbiome in human health and immunity tends to vindicate Bé-champ, and particularly his teachings that microorganisms are beneficial to good health. Köhnlein and Engelbrecht observe that:
[But] even for mainstream medi-cine, it is becoming increasingly clear that the biological terrain of our intestines-the intestinal flora, teeming with bacteria [or weighing up to 1 kg in a normal adult](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z233fl2onqt7wbjkolynhsi3/bafkreige6b5a4ah2a6ai6wyxxu2mz6ggak4xjk5khl57x3crlar37hkyxu)
![Beyond the statute, the President's inherent Article Il authority is plainly
violated by the district court's order. As a function of his inherent Article II authority
to protect the nation, the President may determine that TdA represents a significant
risk to the United States, that it is intertwined and advancing the interests of a foreign
government in a manner antithetical to the interests of the United States, and that its
members should be summarily removed from this country as part of that threat. The
exercise of authority in this case is firmly supported by longstanding precedent of
the Supreme Court. As that Court has repeatedly held, Article II confers upon the
President expansive authority over foreign affairs, national security, and
immigration. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952); United
13
USCA Case #25-5067 Document #2105928|
Filed: 03/15/2025
Page 15 of 18
States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). And where, as here,
"the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," i.e.,
50 U.S.C. § 21, coupled with the President's own Article Il powers over foreign
affairs and national security, "his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that
he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 10 (2015) (similar).
If anything, this authority is heightened in the context presented by this case.
The Supreme Court has consistently noted that "[i]t is an accepted maxim of
international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in
sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners
within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions
as it may see fit to prescribe." Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659
(1892). Thus, "[w]hen Congress p…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:on5oeywiqx32fh2zau473wz6/bafkreib6a5zetp5iozkdrnrkg6wxjr3nmjrq5qtha4hfbew5ccdhzfb5l4)
