Mike Lee proposes three major bills to limit government
IMO, all three would be major steps in the right direction. The best part was his acknowledgement that it was Congress' own avoidance that has created the massive overreaches of the bureaucracies.
In case this helps, the bill numbers are:
REINS Act - HR 26
Separation of Powers Restoration Act - HR 76
Agency Accountability Act - HR 5499
https://www.conservativereview.com/sc...
A task not unlike mucking the Agean stables.
Counter to this was FDR, who had to be prevented from a third (elected) term by Constitutional Amendment. I would also note that one can be sure that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have loved third terms...
I would tie the scope of the limit for rulings to the GDP rather than $100M, so we don't end up with silly numbers like $20 in the Seventh Amendment. $100M is a pretty low number (which I like), just imagine the effect of a simple gas tax or speed limit.
The looting corrupt whores will just find more loopholes the size of the Potomac.
As long as they reap rewards from treason and steal the production of the people at gunpoint via the income tax there will be no return to constitutionally limited government. No individual liberty. No free markets.
The first is to prevent rules and other actions by bureaucracies which cross a cost threshold to be redirected to Congress (they are more appropriately legislative actions than exercise of executive discretion).
The second reverses the Supreme Court precedent which gives tremendous leeway to bureaucracies' rulemaking authority and establishes a different standard to replace "Chevron Deference". (For a thorough explanation on how Chevron Deference came to pass and its ramifications, Hillsdale College's lecture is illustrative: (https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...)
The third one would fundamentally change the out-of-control practice of asset forfeiture and remove the pecuniary interests which currently present tremendous conflicts of interest.
Each one is a tremendous step in the right direction.
drained.....
We got a 4 year slowing down of the march to socialism in january of this year. The swamp isnt going to allow much more than that.
With respect to the native American Indians, there is no question in my mind that there were treaties abrogated on the part of the United States. Andrew Jackson was particularly criminal in his treatment of them (the indigenous peoples). But let us not forget: they were not citizens of the United States. One can make all the arguments (with certain justification no doubt) that the US encroached upon their territories. But these are disputes between two sovereign nations - not a dispute within the United States about the protections provided by the Constitution against Legislative overreach. Were these failures to abide by principles of natural rights? That is certainly up for debate because the natives didn't believe in natural rights either... (It is still a major Constitutional question whether they are actually citizens of the United States or not given that everything that deals with them is treaty-based...)
With regards to the Southern States, Abraham Lincoln properly framed the question thus: is the compact which formed the United States by a supermajority of members subject to dissolution by a minority? It is a question which was never resolved Constitutionally. Ultimately, the division between the North and the South came down to which States were going to be able to perpetuate slavery. As the South was clearly in favor of slavery and thus rejected Natural Rights and the Declaration of Independence as intended by Thomas Jefferson, I find it hard to sympathize with their argument. What was really happening was that the 3/5 Compromise gave the South undue political power up until the mid-1850's when the populations of the West began to explode, threatening the stranglehold upon politics that emphasized a pro-slavery bent in Legislative practice. The changing demographics saw a power struggle emerge centering on both Legislative actions such as the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave laws as well as the Dredd Scott case.
Certain actions I do see as defects in the Constitution:
Amendment 12. This creates party-line votes for President + Vice President and practically ensconces political parties. I should like to see it repealed.
Amendment 14. This one has been misconstrued to imply that illegals hold the same rights as citizens.
Amendment 17. This one wasn't as much a defect as a huge mistake, as it altered the election of Senators and revoked the constraints upon the Federal Government afforded by the States.
Amendment 18. Establishes an income tax. Enough said.
Could and should there be an Amendment ensconcing property rights? I would wholeheartedly agree with such.
The Constitution protects the Citizens of the United States against encroachment upon their natural rights by the Federal Government. But it can not protect foreign nationals against similar encroachment: that is solely the purview of those foreign nations or treaties. (To encroach upon this is to deny foreign sovereignty and to engage in war.) This is one of the flaws in many of the Supreme Court cases dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment: they authorize the extension of protectionary measures to non-Citizens despite the lack of jurisdiction to do so.
Yes, Jefferson did own slaves and you would not be the first to point out the hypocrisy of that situation. George Washington also owned slaves, but emancipated them. Some argue that the reason Jefferson did not free his slaves (despite his morals) was due to his poor fiscal management. Whatever the case it does undermine Jefferson's zeal toward the very principles he asserted, no question. But does the Declaration make Jefferson an authority, or does Jefferson make the Declaration authoritative? Is it the man or the principle which matters most?
I wish that we had such a system in which consistency was an output of our citizenry, but I think that the only way to guarantee such is to install totalitarianism (which kind of defeats the purpose). Variety is one of the hallmarks of a free society. That means that there are bound to be mistakes made. It is not an excuse for any such, only a realization and caution for those wise enough to heed the warning.
Really what your question centers on, however, is one of jurisdiction. Do we as Americans have the right to dictate or impose our values on those of other nations? I would argue that carte blanche we do not because they are subjects of another nation. That certainly applies when they physically are located outside our borders. While they are inside our borders their status as a visitor (tourist, businessperson, etc.) says that they are guests subject to certain allowances but also immune from many legal stipulations (execution, etc.). But a guest is not the same as a Citizen.
I think that one of the overreaches that has gotten us into trouble, however, is our zeal for the protection of natural rights which has resulted in us using the means of coercion to institute these laws on others regardless of their willingness to accept them (Iraq, Afghanistan). It is an instance of the ends being laudable but the means violating the very principles the ends are predicated on!
The analogy for legislatures is tempting but generally not appropriate. (No I have not. Not yet.)
John Ross described the thought process very well in Unintended Consequences.
I think someone even wrote a book about that.