The Congressional Review Act is one of the better pieces of evidence that career politicians are wrongly protecting their voting records imo. They do so by letting non-elected federal bureaucrats get away with exercising unpopular, unconstitutional legislative / regulatory powers, such powers often state powers that bureaucrats have stolen from 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.
More specifically, the Founding States made the Constitution’s first numbered clauses, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide these clauses from Congress (sarc), to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in faceless, non-elected bureaucrats running constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies like EPA, IRS and many others.
So elected members of Congress have a constitutional “monopoly” on Congress’s very limited legislative powers whether they want it or not.
Again, the major concern with the Congressional Review Act is that the wrong people are exercising not only the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, but also stolen state powers.
The likely reason, imo, that post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers try to keep their voting records clean is to fool low-information voters, voters who have never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, into reelecting these state sovereignty-ignoring lawmakers.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“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.
”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 [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”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.
I am totally in awe at your response. Well done! Very well done, indeed!
I applaud you on the quality and accuracy of your post!