Biden's Constitution workarounds – president doesn't see limits for government

[Counselor706]

President Joe Biden has long pledged to "build back better" but in the last few months it has become clear that his transformative plans go beyond mere infrastructure and extend to our very structure of government.

From abortions to elections to rents, Biden is seeking to federalize huge areas to displace state law. Not since John Adams and his Federalist Party has the country faced such a fundamental challenge to our system of federalism.

There has been little media attention to the impressive litany of losses of the Biden administration in court or the open pressure by the White House on these agencies. The media covered such pressure extensively during the Trump administration and legal experts objected that the Trump White House was attacking the independence of the Justice Department and other agencies. In these measures, Biden is demanding dubious federal actions that are being promptly taken by his agency heads with poor outcomes for the executive branch.

Roughly 200 years ago, the Federalist Party faded from political dominance in the United States and, with it, his vision for a dominant federal government. The Democratic Party has now emerged as the new Federalist Party and Biden is seeking to outdo Adams in supplanting state authority. It is not an act of building back as much as breaking down a system designed to protect liberty by preventing the concentration of authority in our government.

Source

 

[Rightguide]

Because he doesn't believe in America as founded. He is not a good American.

 

[pecksniff]

To "federalize huge areas to displace state law" is a practice with an entirely honorable, and never regrettable, history in our country, going back to FDR or further. "States' rights" is a concept with no honorable history, to put it mildly. Let us never hear of it again.

 

[ll74]

Source

Basically, libertarian is whining about government that governs.

Wah.

Sorry, but the DoJ defending an existing precedent is not a workaround to anything.

 

[pecksniff]

Also, the thread title implies a concern with "limits for government" as such -- which has nothing to do with the allocation of powers and functions between the state and federal levels. It's all government, after all, and if we're concerned with government encroachments on our liberties, the federal government is not, historically or even now, the worst offender.

 

[CornusKousa]

Also, the thread title implies a concern with "limits for government" as such -- which has nothing to do with the allocation of powers and functions between the state and federal levels.

Peck, you lying to yourself again??

Most (D)'s and leftist are at leas honest about the fact that they hate states and think we should be a unitary state and the federal government should have ABSOLUTE power to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHIN it wants.....so long as (D)'s are in control of it.

To "federalize huge areas to displace state law" is a practice with an entirely honorable, and never regrettable, history in our country, going back to FDR or further. "States' rights" is a concept with no honorable history, to put it mildly. Let us never hear of it again.

Yes we all know how much of a despotic control freak you are.

Just CAN'T live and let live.... Karen, I mean Peck, has to CONTROL.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes we all know how much of a despotic control freak you are.

And you know I'm right on every point.

 

[pecksniff]

Because he doesn't believe in America as founded. He is not a good American.

No good American believes in America as founded. Good Americans have been struggling for more than two centuries to correct the FFs' mistakes, while bad Americans have been obstructing them.

 

[Rightguide]

To "federalize huge areas to displace state law" is a practice with an entirely honorable, and never regrettable, history in our country, going back to FDR or further. "States' rights" is a concept with no honorable history, to put it mildly. Let us never hear of it again.

Gross ignorance on display. The police powers in the US are in the hands of the states, not the federal government. There is no declaration of War that transfers that power and places the CinC in charge of all aspects of the country. As was the case from 1941-45 during FDR's last years. You should probably read the Constitution.

 

[Rightguide]

No good American believes in America as founded. Good Americans have been struggling for more than two centuries to correct the FFs' mistakes, while bad Americans have been obstructing them.

As usual you're full of commie shit.

 

[pecksniff]

As usual you're full of commie shit.

What I'm describing is no more Commie than MLK.

 

[Lazaran]

As usual you're full of commie shit.

Quoted for posterity and weakness.

That was a BoBo level response.

At least you didn't call him a "Neo-Maoist".

*bigly chuckles*

 

[pecksniff]

Gross ignorance on display. The police powers in the US are in the hands of the states, not the federal government. There is no declaration of War that transfers that power and places the CinC in charge of all aspects of the country. As was the case from 1941-45 during FDR's last years. You should probably read the Constitution.

The actions of FDR that the RW finds most objectionable were before the war. In hindsight, they were neither unconstitutional nor regrettable.

 

[pecksniff]

Source

Whether a "workaround" or a "pathway," the move would allow the federal government to dictate public health measures in every state . . .

So fucking what? Somebody has to override those dumbshit red-state governors.

 

[ll74]

So fucking what? Somebody has to override those dumbshit red-state governors.

Public health doesn't change over state lines.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Because he doesn't believe in America as founded. He is not a good American.

That's been the progressive mantra for at least a century. They hate the Constitution and DoI for exactly that reason.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Public health doesn't change over state lines.

Where is it in the Constitution?

 

[pecksniff]

Where is it in the Constitution?

Under "the General Welfare."

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Under "the General Welfare."

That confers no power on the federal government, I'm sure you know.

 

[Rightguide]

The actions of FDR that the RW finds most objectionable were before the war. In hindsight, they were neither unconstitutional nor regrettable.

Bullshit. He issued Executive Order 9066 and put 120,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps, took over the entire economy through his war production board. He instituted rationing on the American people, told car manufacturers what they were going to build and what they weren't going to build. He seized every privately owned gold and Silver mine in America. He limited civil rights, and a whole host of other shit I don't have time to get into.

 

[ll74]

Where is it in the Constitution?

14th Amendment.

“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

My comment wasn't about the constitution.....it was about the discussion (literally) of public health. No state's public health is any different than any others.....the virus crosses state lines.

 

[pecksniff]

Bullshit. He issued Executive Order 9066 and put 120,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps, took over the entire economy through his war production board. He instituted rationing on the American people, told car manufacturers what they were going to build and what they weren't going to build. He seized every privately owned gold and Silver mine in America. He limited civil rights, and a whole host of other shit I don't have time to get into.

Never before heard any RW raise any objection to any of that. It was all to be expected in wartime. Even the Japanese internments, though it was strange they never interned any members of the German-American Bunds, which were definitely pro-Nazi and posed an actual danger of sabotage.

 

[pecksniff]

That confers no power on the federal government, I'm sure you know.

A point on which broader interpretation is both arguable and necessary.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

14th Amendment.

“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

My comment wasn't about the constitution.....it was about the discussion (literally) of public health. No state's public health is any different than any others.....the virus crosses state lines.

There is no power for the federal government to force citizens of states to get a vaccine. None. If it's not in the Constitution (and the 14A doesn't do it), then there is no power.

You wetsucks had a brain aneurysm when Trump even suggested that he'd shut down the country. This is no different.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

A point on which broader interpretation is both arguable and necessary.

Known more commonly as an unconstitutional usurpation. Sorry, no power for you.