Half of the House Voted ‘Yes’ to Socialism, Despite Losing Track Record

When condemning socialism, supporting free and fair elections, and promising to uphold the Constitution are no longer bipartisan issues, something has clearly gone wrong in American politics.

On Sept. 1, the House of Representatives voted 220-192, with only eight Democrats joining every Republican in voting to denounce socialism. That represents a remarkable change from 2023, when 109 House Democrats—more than half of the party’s caucus—joined Republicans in condemning socialism.

House Resolution 1490 packaged several statements together and called upon the House of Representatives to:

1. Condemn and denounce “socialism in all its forms, including the Democratic Socialists of America,” and oppose implementing socialist policies nationwide.

2. Reaffirm “support for free, fair, and secure elections” and that American elections are for American citizens only.

4. Enact the “SAVE America Act to ensure election security, increase public confidence in America’s voting system, and close loopholes” that allow noncitizens to vote.

Thank you for referencing that article MinorityRepublican.

Half of the House Voted ‘Yes’ to Socialism, Despite Losing Track Record

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Even if socialism was the greatest invention since sliced bread, the constitutionally indefensible, non-bill resolution for socialism sounds like an election year stunt for constitutionally low-information, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification voters, possibly an elite Democrats and RINO ploy to distract voters from Trump's $5,000 for all eligible citizens after elections. But consider Trump's $5,000 as just the beginning of reparations for taxpayers for a lifetime of constitutionally indefensible post-16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes) and 17A (popular vote for federal senators) ratifications taxes.

Regarding unconstitutional federal socialism, note that two signs of a socialistic government are regulation of transportation and banking in the name of protecting ordinary citizens from monopolies, the irony being that the corrupt federal government (16&17A) ends up becoming the monopoly.

Consider that Congress in the time of President James Madison (4th pres.), Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had found some EXISTING tax revenues and got all happy about spending it. So comparable to the convenience of sliced bread, the 14th Congress drafted the Bonus Bill of 1817 to use the taxpayer dollars to improve military readiness and commerce by authorizing the construction of roads and canals intended to facilitate moving troops and manufactured goods, Congress ultimately becoming the monopolist if POTUS signed such a bill into law.

But the still-rookie 14th Congress had based the bill solely on the General Welfare Clause (GWC) which turned out to be a BIG mistake.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States [emphasis added]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

More specifically, while Madison actually AGREED with Congress that the bill would improve transportation, he diplomatically clarified in his veto explanation that while the GWC authorizes Congress to tax and spend, he reminded Congress, if Congress ever had a clue, that the Constitution's drafters, Madison himself a major player, had intended for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 to limit what Congress could spend tax dollars for, no mention of roads and canals for Congress's purpose for the Bonus Bill. Madison also noted that the bonus bill didn't even pass Congress's traditional "wild card" excuse for justifying spending, the infamous "Necessary and Proper Clause."

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill

In fact, the congressional record explains that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), had later effectively complimented Madison's veto by noting that that the Constitution's drafters had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the big bad, and now very corrupt federal government.

Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen [all emphases added], under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government. 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)

Also consider that Thomas Jefferson's advice on interpreting Congress's limited powers likewise compliments Madison's veto.

In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids. —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

So elite Democratic and RINOs who supported socialism can be regarded as openly supporting rebellion against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, such lawmakers deserving to lose their offices under Section 3 of 14A imo.

14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall [all emphases added] be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

However, in this troubled world, it's entirely up to G+d-fearing patriot voters to effectively "Section 3" corrupt state and federal lawmakers and executives up for reelection by voting them out of office in this midterm election year.

That being said, Trump's red tsunami of Democratic and Republican supporters, evidenced by his third win in 2024 elections, need to help preserve his legacy by likewise giving Republicans a record-breaking win in the midterm elections.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.