4 thoughts on “A Federalism-Restoration Amendment”

1. It would be nice if partisan crap could be put aside long enough for people with both major parties to agree on one thing: Unlimited government is more dangerous than anything else. Even the left has to admit that, given their horror over the Bush presidency. Continuing to expand federal power can backfire on either party, and it’s clearly endangering our civil liberties–all of them.

2. This is a common mistake I see many programmers doing in their code. The solution is to strike the commerce clause from the constitution. Adding amendments simply creates/leaves more holes for the Libtards to crawl through.

3. In its original meaning the commerce clause was a sensible restriction to state power. The problem, in large part, is the federal power being applied to intrastate commerce, not just interstate commerce. The federal government should have little power over activities taking place solely withing the bounds of a single state.

   Another problem I see is the power of the federal government to tax individuals and turn that money around to coerce states into supporting extra-constitutional federal initiatives.

   The problem might not be quite so bad if laws were easier to repeal than pass, or legislative sunset was the law of the land.

4. In its original meaning the commerce clause was a sensible restriction to state power.

   The founders knew the weakness of people. It seems they didn’t anticipate a majority of them would go insane. At this point we can see the power imbalance between the states and fed. I’m not so worried that removing the commerce clause would tilt too much toward the states (as long as we can still vote with our feet.) Anything less than removal would still leave too much power with the fed. Another advantage is it would force the dismantling of bodies based on the commerce clause as the implications became apparent (with a tooth and nail fight to follow.)

Comments are closed.