Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cotton1706; All
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following material from related threads.

Regarding so-called federal agencies like the EPA, patriots are reminded that the Founding States made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide these clauses from Congress (sarc), to clarify the following.

All federal legislative / regulatory powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and IRS, rogue federal agencies run by non-elected bureaucrats who actually have no constitutional authority to tell citizens and businesses what to do imo.

In other words, career federal lawmakers wrongly front-end federal legislative powers with non-elected bureaucrats so that they can keep their voting records clean.

And by keeping their voting records clean, they can fool low-information voters, voters who have probably never been taught about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, into reelecting them, this cycle of corruption therefore weakening voting power.

What's worse is this. Since one of the very few powers that the states have expressly constitutionally given the feds to dictate an aspect of domestic policy is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7), consider that probably most of the federal regulations that corrupt Congress lets federal agencies get away with oppressing the people with are based on stolen state powers, thus weakening state sovereignty.

”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.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, not the feds.

”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis later put it this way about the "laboratories of democracy," the unique powers of the sovereign states to serve the people, depending on what the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.

Note that constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.

The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government…

Patriots need to support PDJT in working with the new, post-2020 election patriot lawmakers to surrender state powers that the feds have been stealing from the states back to the states.

And to make such a change permanent, patriots need to further support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

17 posted on 12/03/2019 4:26:03 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10
The title "Judges claw at Trump’s academic purge at EPA" is utterly misleading. That isn't what the judges said. As Judge Lynch stated "“You seriously want us to rule on an appeal from a motion to dismiss?” suggesting that Schauf would have a stronger case if he could .... show bad faith on the EPA’s part or a violation of other laws pertaining to the agency.

This is of course what plaintiff has to show - that the EPA violated it's discretion by acting illegally or "unreasonably."

20 posted on 12/03/2019 4:46:03 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson