"A Republican Spending Problem Will the House be willing to cut programs that benefit G.O.P. voters?"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
NYT is either clueless, or probably blatantly ignoring, that Congress cannot constitutionally justify most of the taxes that it makes people pay, most federal domestic policy based on state powers and state revenues that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds steal from the states.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the drafters of the Constitution had trusted the states, not the feds, with the care of the people.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
In other words, primarying RINOs in 2022 was just for practice. Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying for 2024 elections.
Come on people. Start with cutting where there is no pushback. 10% of the government could be eliminated tomorrow with no one noticing. Entire departments could have to go to prevent a future regrowth.
Do the democrats suffer any pushback when they apply their woke policies to the military? The opportunities are there for us.
Clinton wanted ‘a clean bill’ once. Didn’t want killer add ons. He won that argument over the gop majority.
“...NYT is either clueless, or probably blatantly ignoring, that Congress cannot constitutionally justify most of the taxes that it makes people pay, most federal domestic policy based on state powers and state revenues that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds steal from the states....”
Most of them have already been “Constitutionally justified” by USSC decisions. I don’t necessarily agree with the decisions, but they are there. If there haven’t been such a decision, no one thought success was likely if challenging them. Remember someone has to bring the case to the Court. It can’t look for cases!
Almost every USSC decision of the FDR era should be reexamined. One of the most heinous USSC decisions and one which the regulatory state is based on is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). (USSC decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government.) There are several others - like SS. (Where in the Constitution is there permission for a national federally administered retirement program?). A lot of those decisions made by the USSC were made under duress. FDR & cronies were trying to pack the court at the time.
A recent (1964) USSC decision that has devastated states with large urban areas was Reynolds v. Sims. The now forgotten Illinois senator Evertt Dirksen prophesized what that decision would do to his state and others. He led an effort to convene an Article V convention for an amendment to the Constitution that would allow for legislative districts of unequal population. (Probably unequal population state senatorial districts is good enough!)
Only Clarence Thomas has made some indications that he would like to see the Court revisit some of those decisions.