The rule reflects the law at code section 401 which was passed by congress in 1974.
Trump needs to instruct the attorney general to check all laws in the federal books, particularly those made during and after the FDR Administration, to make sure that they are reasonably justified under one of Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers, particularly the powers listed in Section 8 of Article I.
Any federal laws which cannot be reasonably constitutionally justified need to be taken out of the books imo.
Regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) for example, please consider the following.
Thomas Jefferson, and previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices, had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to regulate INTRAstate banking, INTRAstate commerce, or contracts, regardless if the parties involved in the contract are domeciled in different states.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
“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.” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
In fact, Congress has based things like Social Security on the General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1), evidenced by Helvering v. Davis. But the problem with Congress justifying anything with the GWC is this. President James Madison had vetoed Congress’s public works bill of 1817, noting the following in the constitutionally required veto explanation.
The GWC was not intended to be an express delegation of power as the 14th Congress had wrongly interpreted it, but merely an introductory clause for the clauses that followed it in Section 8, those clauses intended to be understood as express delegations of power.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
Trump has his work cut out in peacefully “forcing” the corrupt federal government to surrender state powers that it has stolen from the states back to the states.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
As mentioned in previous post, if Trump can put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, then the states are probably going to find a tsunami of new revenues that they won’t know what to do with.