The concept of a very limited federal government with expressed powers - leaving the unexpressed and all the rest to the states and the people.
Huh? Where is this country? I don’t see it?
>
But Leftists don’t like enforcing our borders. They don’t like the nation - so defending its sovereignty isn’t a priority. In fact - violating it is. Illegal aliens cost tons of government coin - which means they grow government. So the Left loves them.
>
As the author had noted, “we’ll ignore his error...”. It’s the TAXPAYER’s coin. Proper taxes are to be paid for those things AUTHORIZED to govt by the Constitution (IE: NOT welfare, NOT foreign aide, NOT...)
>
And do so while bizarrely, in-warped-and-wrong-fashion crying - “Federalism!”
Another example of this - is the World Wide Web. It is, after all, a World Wide Web. Which means our sovereign nation quite obviously should have one federal slate of Internet policies - and our federal government should negotiate terms for international Internet interaction with the rest of the planet.
>
Strike TWO for the author.
Maybe I missed this area of the Constitution. Just because it spans internationally, doesn’t make it a FEDERAL ‘issue’.
Computer manuf. didn’t need federal ‘policy’ to dictate how standards should be set, technology grown and adapted.
Plenty of public consortium able to noodle out frameworks (WiFi, *nix operating system, open-source, etc.)
>
How to Understand the Commerce Clause in One Simple Sentence: “Congress has the authority to regulate trade between the states; or in other words, the process of goods and services moving from one state to another. Not the products themselves. Not the process of creating those products. Just the act of the products moving from state to state. That’s it.”
>
And, strike THREE.
Congress has the authority to MAKE regular interstate commerce; it has no authority to dictate anything else.
‘Regulate’ in the 18th century != 20/21st century ‘regulate’