U.S. Chamber of Commerce pressing House Republicans to save $1.2T infrastructure bill

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pressuring House Republicans to save President Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure package in the face of rising opposition from far-left Democrats.

A whip list the Chamber is using to build support for the package, obtained exclusively by The Washington Times, indicates it’s targeting 57 potential GOP members who might support a centerpiece of Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda. The Chamber hopes to flip enough Republicans to overcome heavy opposition from the 98-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, who say liberal priorities are being lost as Mr. Biden tries to sell his spending programs on the Hill.

The list of Republicans being courted is both ideologically and geographically diverse. The Chamber is pursuing centrists like Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and staunch conservatives such as Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, alike. The business lobby has long backed more government spending on the roads, bridges and other physical infrastructure featured in the $1.2 trillion package.

Noting that the deceptively (imo) named United States Chamber of Commerce is the largest lobbying group in the U.S. regardless of Supreme Court clarification that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce, please consider the following.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”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.

But as a consequence of generations of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the fed's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, the millions of misguided (follow the money?) business owners who support the Chamber have probably never examined Justice Joseph Story's warning about how not to interpret Congress's very limited Commerce Clause powers.

“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” — Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

Justice Story had clarified that, although there are many issues that are "intimately" related to commerce that can be argued to fall under Congress's Commerce Clause powers, it remains that Congress needs to keep its big nose (my words) out of INTRAstate commerce.

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. 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]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
”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 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.

The question is, how did we get from a constitutionally limited power federal government to an unconstitutionally big federal government that is oppressing everybody under its boots?

Although misguided (imo) FDR failed to stack the Supreme Court, he was reelected enough times to form a majority of state sovereignty-ignoring activist Supreme Court justices. (If FDR was so popular, why didn't he simply encourage Congress to petition the states for new express constitutional powers to justify his otherwise unconstitutional (imo) "New Deal" spending programs?)

Regarding FDR's justices, using inappropriate words like "concept" and "implicit," these politically motivated justices wrongly diluted 10th Amendment (10A) protected state powers to a wives' tale 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. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

The post-FDR era Democratic and RINO-controlled, Constitution-ignoring Congress has effectively wrongly been using the Court's politically correct ignoring of 10A in Wickard v. Filburn to justify all kinds of unconstitutional federal domestic policy and spending imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments oppressing the people...

Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.

Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.

Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Again, insights welcome.

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.