​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Elect The Right Candidate 

 

The U.S. has many problems


The way to progressivism

The progressives realize that from time to time, they will lose control of the government to Conservatives.  In general this poses no significant problem as the so-called Conservatives elected to office try to decrease the funding and run the government better.  This does not work and the Progressives bide their time and when they regain power, they increase the funding and run the government the way they want.  Electing a true conservative President would change this.


The Way to Conservatism

       The U.S.Congress can easily vote to change things.  Congress has the power of the purse.  This means that either the House or the Senate can defund government departments, agencies or programs if they so desire.  Spending appropriations must originate in the House.  When approved they are sent on to the Senate and when both bodies agree, they are sent to the President for his signature following which they become law.  The problem is that rather than sending multiple appropriation bills to the Senate, the House sends a continuing resolution to continue all spending.  If it fails, a government shut down occurs. ​ One would assume that with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, Congress would use the appropriation process.  However, as the graphs below shows (Data from Conservative Review), Conservative and moderate Republicans are only 15 percent of the House and 12 percent of the Senate.  The rest are RINOs and Republicans.















       It would seem logical and relatively easy to vote the RINOs out and replace them with conservatives.  This has not proved to be easy.  When House majority leader, Eric Cantor, lost his seat in 2014, it was as initially reported that anearthquake had struck capital hill.   However nothing really changed.  Perhaps term limits might have made a difference but the Supreme Court struck that down and the states acquiesced like sheep going to the slaughter.  It is doubtful that a change to less government will come from Congress.

Supreme Court - Line Item Veto


       A true conservative Presidentwith courage, conviction, and intelligence could likely make a difference.  could very likely make a difference.  It is fairly obvious that the President can veto spending bills.  However, if it is an all or nothing continuing resolution, the feared government shout down might occur.  The President might be successful in insisting on individual appropriation bills.

       The President might also ignore or nullify the 1998 Supreme Court 6/3 ruling that struck down theline item veto.  After all, the President takes an oath to, ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  He does not swear to follow the opinion of six appointed lawyers.

       With the oath in mind, the president could also refuse to execute Congressional laws that he believes to be unconstitutional.  The only recourse of Congress is to impeach the President.  If he explains to the American people what he is doing and makes the decisions wisely about what unconstitutional laws not to follow, it is likely that he would not be successfully impeached.  We live in interesting times because there are at least three Presidential candidates that might work for the American people and make a true difference.  Only time will tell.


       The Supreme Court is also an offender in increasing the size of the federal government.  InMabry v. Madison, 18023, the Supreme Court ruled that it had the power of Judicial Review where The Supreme Court could rule if a legislation was Constitutional or not.  This put the Supreme Court on an equal footing with Congress and the Presidency.  This worked fairly well until the Supreme Court in 5 to 4 split decisions began ruling FDR's New Deal unconstitutional.  Roosevelt countered by threatening to increase the court to fifteen members and packing the court with progressive judges.  On of the Justices began switching his vote to support the New Deal.  This is known as, "The Switch in Time that Saved Nine."

       This gave vast new powers to the federal government including Wickard v. Filmore that said the federal government could tell a farmer how much wheat to plant, even if it was for his own consumption.  This gave the federal government the power to take over the economy which it continues to do with great gusto.  A courageous President could refuse to enforce these unconstitutional laws.  Remember, the Supreme Court cannot enforce its rulings.  It takes the executive branch to do this.  The only recourse for Congress is to impeach the President.

       More recently the Supreme Court has begun ruling against State laws.  Perhaps the most egregious is the 1995 decision, Inc. v. Thornton.  At the time 23 states had term limits for their U.S. Senator and/or House member.  In a split 5 to 4 decision,The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional with the twisted logic that because the U.S. Constitution had some restrictions on Congressional members, the states could not have any restrictions.  As previously mentioned, the courts must rely on the executive brach to enforce its ruling.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if a State enforced its term limit laws that are still on the books by not allowing incumbents on the ballot.

      Then there is another power grab by the Supreme Court, incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States.  The original Bill of Rights was only to apply to the federal government.  The states were free to make their own laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, gun rights, a woman's right to privacy, etc.  This is in keeping with federalism where we had a limited federal government.  In a power grab using twisted logic from the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that it had the power to extend the Bill of Rights against the States.  As mentioned before, the states could say the Supreme Court is wrong.  The Constitution does not give them this power and then refuse to follow their rulings.


      This is called nullification.  The federal government is the supreme law for those laws made "pursuant to the Constitution" (Article VI, Clause 3 of U.S. Constitution).  For those laws not pursuant to the Constitution the states can call them null and void and of no effect.  There are many successes:

  • The right to try lifesaving medications prohibited by the FDA.
  • Hemp growing and sales in states even though the feds prohibit this.
  • States withholding resources from federal mass surveillance programs.
  • State laws prohibiting cooperation with federal gun grabbers. 
  • State of Texas is developing its own gold backed currency to bypass inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank.
  • And more