Trump's Infrastructure Spending Plan is Grossly UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Jim Delaney]

FELLOW TRUMP SUPPORTERS won't like this, but that's the way it goes sometime.

Over and over again, I have appealed for a restoration of constitutional order. Central to that appeal is the requirement that we each--despite our proclivities or political persuasion--faithfully adhere to the Constitution, a tall order in this age of relativism and self-destructive bread-and-circuses giveaways.

While I appreciate the need for repairing/modernizing/upgrading our "infrastructure", point to any article in the Constitution which permits the federal government to fund such projects. (Neither Art 1, Sec 8, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause nor the terribly misinterpreted Welfare Clause permit it.)

In short, there are some campaign promises not worth keeping--especially if acting on those promises violates the Constitution one is pledged to uphold.

You need but to review the words of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", in his message to Congress in 1817 which accompanied his veto of just such an infrastructure bill by pointing out that the Constitution disallows such federal expenditures.

Except for "post roads"--and I suppose, with tongue-in-cheek, we could stretch that definition to encompass the interstate highway system over which many federal postal deliveries are made--Congress has no business whatsoever financing the repair and upgrading of bridges, airports, etc. NONE!!!! ZERO!!!! NADA!!!! There simply is no authority in the Constitution to permit the feds to do this. (To enable Congress to fund such projects would require a constitutional amendment.)

So, where does the rightful authority to rebuild infrastructure lie? The individual States and the private sector!! NOT the federal government!!!!

In short, if we, as patriots, really do support the Constitution, then, in good conscience, we cannot support Trump's infrastructure expenditure plans. It is not only profligate; it is in violation of the Constitution. Don't like what I'm saying? Then listen to the Father of the Constitution. Don't like what he has to say either? Then the Constitution is, at best, an irrelevance to you. And so goes the republic...

Let's not repeat in any way Obama's lawless infrastructure nightmare. Time to draw a line in the stand. It's time to stop such gross violations of the Constitution here and now.

Though they sure as hell act that way for most of the time, States aren't helpless or without financial resources. They can and SHOULD work with the private sector to upgrade infrastructure within their sovereign territories. The federal government is NEVER the answer in such matters.

We continue to surrender our authority to Leviathan at our own peril. More debt and less liberty.

Today in History: James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Bill as Uncon...

Exactly 200 years ago today, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of…

TENTHAMENDMENTCENTER.COM|BY DAVE BENNER

[Raya @ REAL CONSERVATIVES]

.

.

WOW!!!, You guys...

This is precisely the kind of DIALOGUE of which Uncle Sam spoke!

(  http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/dialogue  )

...and is what will keep the "Spirit of '76"  ( Liberty )  alive for generations.

...amazing!!!

K  E  E  P   I  T   UP  !!!!

.

.

[Jim Delaney]

Once the courts settled on the  Hamiltonian view of a de-limited/expansive federal authority, it was all over. Lincoln's War was the nail in the coffin. Even Madison and Jefferson said they'd be surprised if the republic ratified in 1787 lasted beyond 1825. So, I know it will be impossible to return to constitutional order, but if we were to return to at least a modicum of constitution order and federal restraint I would shut the hell up. That said, I fear the foundational damage is so severe as to be irremediable. This is why I am firmly and unashamedly convinced that the union of once proud and sovereign States is a myth and no longer advances the principles of our founders or the interests of today's advocates for constitutional order. For me and for millions of other conservatives, secession is unquestionably our only hope for a remedy. If we can't have constitutional government in the union, we can certainly enjoy it on a separate State level until that State's approach too becomes corrupted--and it eventually will. Man being Man, I suspect it's a cycle of corruption which cannot be avoided. Anyway, I've joined the Texas Nationalist Movement. Why? This isn't the "republic" I'm willing to lay down my life for. Unity at ANY price is suicidal, and I don't relish going down with a sinking ship. So, I'll continue to complain and point out our folly. At least it's therapeutic. 

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

You bring up an excellent point Jim asking where the congress gets it's spending authority.

In my scant reading of congressional history, Our young country after the early colonial period was always in a state of flux with an eye to expansion. After The Declaration of Independence was signed and our young nation continued to organize, the leaders had to constantly deal with raising funds to accomplish what they deemed was in their best interest. Roads were always a constant necessity. They were built with both public, private, and government funds.

When the leaders of the various states met in order to form a more perfect union it was obvious that government spending was going to be part of The Constitution of the United States of America. In the Preamble they talk about insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defence and promoting the general Welfare.

Spending on a system of transportation with roads and later canals and even later trains and cars, was all envisioned to be written into Article I  where congress is given authority and power to "lay and collect taxes". Section 8 mentions providing for the "common Defense and General Welfare". Further, Section 8 covers a myriad of activities giving congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Section 8 was purposely written with broad authority. At the  time the direction of the nation was much clearer than it is today. Spending by our government today seems to have no limits. Infrastructure spending can be justified but telling who pees in which bathroom seems beyond all congressional limitations.

Spending Federal  money for infrastructure became more frequent in the early 1800s as expansion by war and negotiation with the French, Indians, Spanish, Mexico, Canada, etc. required a way to explore, survey, and  to occupy and protect new territory. The Federal government took responsibility for a lot of this activity although individual states at times objected for the very reasons you mention Jim.

Spending by congress on infrastructure advanced incrementally over time.

Looking back it doesn't look so incremental anymore, especially with special interests guiding the votes of congress.

TERM LIMITS would seem to be a natural response by our citizens to limit the power of congress to spend money that isn't there.

[Jim Delaney]

sloppy, hurried construction in my comment below, but I think you get the point.

[Jim Delaney]

Re the Eisennhower INTERSTATE hwy system, and as I indicated, that, I think, can be justified on the basis of military transportation and postal delivery needs, albeit it's a stretch. As for Hoover Dam, TVA, no way acceptable to the founders. The States in area could easily have tackled those projects. Manhattan Project is a military expenditure for the defense of the country. As for the "wall", seems to me that that falls within the realm of federal authority/duty to protect nation from invasion and the expanded role the feds have assumed in the area of immigration vs naturalization. IF it's blatantly obvious that something--like the Education Dept, for one--is not among the enumerated powers delegated by the States to the feds, then, yes, an amendment is required. Otherwise, why have  Constitution at all. And, of course, the Progressives would LOVE that. In short, if a power is not specifically denied to the States and is specifically delegated by Art 1 Sec 8 to the feds, then it rests with the States, this per the 10th Amendment. It is very clear-cut. We just seem to be in such a hurry and much too willing to surrender our liberties and the sovereignty of the States. Been that way since Lincoln's War, the successful conclusion of which was easily the worst disaster which befalling the Constitution, doctrine of balance of powers, and the republic. Any one who believes we live in a constitutional republic is delusional. That died in 1865.

[Raya @ REAL CONSERVATIVES]

.

.

". . @ Jim Delaney

...does this mean that The Interstate Highway System, The Railways, The Information Highway ( the internet ), Hoover dam, TVA, the Apollo program and the Manhattan project ...were illegally created? Or, that the Southern Border "Wall", (Trump's Wall), needs to be ratified by a constitutional amendment?

… I truly do not know the answer to these questions. We at REAL CONSERVATIVES are lucky to have the keen insight you lend to constitutional questions, reminding us of our Heritage. The hope is that vigilant patriots such as yourself will persist in questioning politicians' motives, shining the light of constitutional scrutiny on these issues as they may arise.

Perhaps the knowledge you contribute will proliferate among our citizenry, giving real substance to the somewhat trite, and certainly overused, adage " Its a free country ".

We need to know the roots of our Liberty, as defined in our constitution!  You, Jim Delaney, and your learned knowledge of constitutional issues, are unquestionably an asset to the Membership on this site....keep up the good work!

We thank you!

RayA