Posted on 07/15/2022 7:33:13 AM PDT by rktman
I agree. We should be building a statue to Manchin instead of carping about his liberal proclivities.
There is NO DOUBT that CONSERVATISM owes Manchin and Synema a lot.
This is Manchin’s “Zag”! He “Zigged” to put Brown on the USSC to replace Breyer. He’ll be “Zigging” again to make up for this!
Okay, it’s more obvious now. How about that? LOL!
I’ve been told Joe Manchin has had the Presidential bug for quite a while now. Since Biden broke new ground with the age issue, Manchin may think 2024 will be his chance.
He’s doing a great job of getting free press and looking like the “sensible centrist” in the party.
A Manchin/Sinema ticket in 2024?
I think that a lot of Dems are happy about Manchin. He enables them to vote for the crazy measures that the left favors without their ever being imposed.
I think that a lot of Dems are happy about Manchin. He enables them to vote for the crazy measures that the left favors without their ever being imposed.
I’ll just be thankful for his Zag’s and cuss at him under my breath on his Zig’s.
I’ll just be thankful for his Zag’s and cuss at him under my breath on his Zig’s.
Don’t underestimate Murkowski, Romney, and Collins.
Thanks for reply Sacajaweau.
I need to clarify that I wasn't trying to knock Manchin. In fact, I admire that he has repeatedly taken a stand against Democrats on spending.
But since you brought it up, why doesn't he argue major constitutional problems with Democratic & RINO spending like I do?
"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.
In fact, minority RINOs could effectively exercise majority power imo, if they publicly complained that Democrats cannot constitutionally justify their spending bills.
bookmark
I don’t see the constitutional issue.
"I don’t see the constitutional issue."
Are you familiar with Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, probably under two pages of clauses, lots of them relatively short?
There are also some clauses not in Section 8 that authorize miscellaneous federal spending for things like compensation for members of Congress.
The Supreme Court's clarification of Congress's limited power to appropriate taxes in Gibbons v. Ogden (Gibbons) means that Congress must be able to reasonably reasonably fully justify all spending in a given appropriation bill under appropriate constitutional clauses in order for it to be a constitutionally justifiable spending bill imo.
"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.
Otherwise, if Congress cannot reasonably justify everything in a given spending bill with appropriate clauses, the spending bill is unconstitutional imo.
The major constitutional problem is that most of the things in federal domestic spending bills since FDR era are probably not reasonably justifiable under any constitutional clause imo, most federal domestic spending for the last 70+ years unconstitutional imo.
More specifically, unconstitutional federal spending bills are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated state revenues as indicated by the Gibbons excerpt, state powers and revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes created by unconstitutional appropriations bills imo.
Insights welcome.
Nope. He's doing more to stop Biden than the republicans. That's the truth.
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.