Posted on 01/28/2021 12:45:47 PM PST by SJackson
During the new biden Administration (since Jan. 20, 2021), the number of Covid cases & Covid deaths continues relentlessly rising, rising, rising ... in fact, the number of cases and deaths never falls ... it just keeps rising ...
Again, using the DPC's so-called "logic," biden is solely responsible for all those Covid cases & Covid deaths. Thus, biden should be impeached.
In fact, without the encouragement President Trump provided to the pharma companies to expedite vaccine availability, the numbers would be even worse under the biden Administration. Therefore, biden should publicly thank President Trump. Will he congratulate him? No, of course not. Instead, the Democrat Party Cabal obsessively impeached President Trump (for the second time) and desperately wants the Senate to vote to remove President Trump from office. The only problem with the DPC's Master Plan is that Sleepy Joe is snoozing in the Oval Office. So that will make it kind of difficult for the DPC to remove President Trump from the Oval Office. I know, I know ... details, details ...
The democrat Maoists who run Joe Biden don't want to waste any time having any messy debates in congress. They want to destroy America now, with just the stroke of a pen.
Because OraNgE MaN BaD!!!
Yep, and then Obama’s memo is written in stone.
Lol...sure.
It turned communist over 30 years ago.
Yes they are...and they know they have a small window of opportunity to make the large moves that will allow them that control. I'm kind of surprised the New York Times still has what it takes to call them out... I would not have bet that way
And the Reichstag was nothing but a nominal, rubber-stamp Parliament.
Xi sends Biden another watch.
”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.
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 001, 68 (1936)
The quote continues,
None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.
It should be noted that a few years later, the Supreme Court went on to sidestep (or trample upon) this restriction upon regulation of agricultural production. Technically, they engaged in the regulation of interstate commerce pertaining to wheat grown and consumed in a single state, but I'm not sure farmer Filburn noticed the difference.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
A unanimous Court upheld the law. In an opinion authored by Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, the Court found that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate prices in the industry, and this law was rationally related to that legitimate goal. The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To this extent, the opinion went against prior decisions that had analyzed whether an activity was local, or whether its effects were direct or indirect.
While I personally prefer what the Court said in Butler, in is hard to ignore what they did in Filburn.
Filburn Syllabus at 112:
2. The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1941, when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commnerce but wholly for consumption on the farm are within the commerce power of Congress. P. 118.3. The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs. P. 127.
4. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation, where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. P. 127.
5. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such 'Prices. P. 128.
6. A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would.have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow .into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need' of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market. P. 128.
7. The amendatory Act of May 26, 1941, which increased the penalty upon "farm marketing excess" and included irith at category wheat which previously had not been subject to penalty, held not invalid as retroactive legislation repugnant to the Fifth Amendment when applied to wheat planted and growing. before it was enacted but harvested and threshed thereafter. P. 131.
Calling a penalty a tax, and enforcing it as a tax, was sort of in the same spirit.
Liberals are so unaccustomed to being criticized—even mildly—by the media that when it happens they freak out.
Ease up nyt, you knew full well what you were ushering in. Don’t start pretending to be old school news media now. Everyone knows that’s over.
Arrest them, Joe!
“I’m sure Trotsky felt that way once.”
Until he had has mind made right with an ice axe to the coconut.
For once I agree with Biden.
What he is doing is foul.
"It should be noted that a few years later, the Supreme Court went on to sidestep (or trample upon) this restriction upon regulation of agricultural production. Technically, they engaged in the regulation of interstate commerce pertaining to wheat grown and consumed in a single state, but I'm not sure farmer Filburn noticed the difference."
Also, note that 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) in Wickard v. Filburn, 19th century, state sovereignty-respecting justices had previously emphasized the already clear meaning of that clause, that Congress has NO Commerce Clause power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"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.
But more importantly regarding evidence of judicial tyranny concerning the Court's decision about agriculture in Wickard v. Filburn, Justice Joseph Story had previously singled out agriculture as an example of powers that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress.
"Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commerce Clause (1.8.3), 1833.
Wickard v. Filburn also contains the following smoking gun, FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring justices effectively sweeping the 10th Amendment under the carpet.
More specifically, using inappropriate words like “concept" and “implied,” FDR's justices scandalously politically repealed the 10th Amendment imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Exactly. Who needs them. All he has to do is state the constitution is null and void the send in the NG troops and arrest Congress. Might as well take out SCOTUS while he’s at it:
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.