Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Anti-DEI Grant Conditions
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The only specific powers that the states have expressly constitutionally given to the constitutionally limited power (hint), unconstitutionally big federal government to get involved in social engineering are Bill of Rights protections, but also including the criterion (e.g. race, sex) protected by the voting rights amendments, these limited powers arguably an extension of Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers imo.
In other words, all that Trump's institutionally indoctrinated advisors should have to argue against elite, desperate Democratic vote-winning, 16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes)-facilitated, unconstitutional federal grants is that they don't pass the Madison Test imo.
Regarding the Madison Test, note that the 14th 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 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. But 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 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 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
Note Thomas Jefferson's advice on interpreting Congress's limited powers complimented 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.
Getting back to 16A, it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, front-ended by deep state Congress, and desperately needs to be repealed.
Consider that most post-17th Amendment ratification federal lawmakers discovered long ago that they could promise voters who have evidently never really studied the fed's constitutionally limited powers every unconstitutional federal social spending program under the sun to get themselves elected. Constitutionally naïve voters eventually took the bait and elected these crooks, and then reelected them!
Then once in office, criminal-minded lawmakers abuse their 16A powers by simply fulfilling their campaign promises for unconstitutional federal spending, scandalously ignoring their constitutional Article I, Section 8 spending limits when doing so.
The 17th Amendment, popular voting for federal senators, needs to disappear too.
The 17th Amendment, popular voting for federal senators, needs to disappear too.
Why? So weaselly politicians can choose our Senators for us like they did in the old days? If you trust your state legislature that's your prerogative. I live in a deep blue state and don't trust my state legislature to select my pizza toppings for me. Generally speaking, no election by popular vote = no accountability to We the People.
In any event, repealing a Constitutional amendment requires another Constitutional amendment. Good luck getting 3/4 of states to agree on the color of the sky. We'd be better off voting for better Senate candidates than chasing a pipe dream IMO.