Senate Involvement & Constitutional

He’s allowed to make statements you know.

He is allowed to make statements, they are just inappropriate statements that could lead to unconstitutional laws if he steers his evil party in that direction

Hm, but unconstitutional things happen by the mere existence of a lot of congress, so st this point that’s not really my main concern.

I'm just a Tenth Amendment Rights advocate, so I don't appreciate it when people threaten my liberty

And how is your liberty affected by a congressman calling on Israel to stop violence? Or, outside of that, what liberties have you lost? The tenth amendment is flawed, and it’s use should be more of a doctrinal guideline rather than an enforcement mechanism with no exceptions, because a LOT of things in the US require federal control or oversight.

None of them that aren't mentioned in the Constitution require federal oversight

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be, not to mention that the implied powers, though abused a lot, grant the government the ability to take steps to allow them to make their current duties fulfilled, sometimes affording new ones for the sake of efficiency and security, because states either can’t handle it themselves, or would attack one another using those powers.

Implied powers come from the Elastic Clause, which, by technicality, allows these implied powers to exist, and regardless, they’re extremely necessary for making sure the power of corporations and runaway market forces don’t become a problem.

The elastic clause is a myth

The elastic clause is agreed upon by interpretation, which by definition cannot be myth because it requires assumptions of the constitution to work that cannot be proven or disproven, so the assumption, if vague or uncertain enough, can lead to a wide range of outcomes. The outcomes of the elastic clause under current interpretation are that the implied powers are both necessary and proper to create the conditions necessary to carry out governmental duties. At this point, it’s a matter of preference and taste.

It can be proven to be false by looking at the understanding of the ratifiers of the Constitution, whose understanding, legally, is correct, as they were the ones who agreed to that contract. Jut like you can interpret the words "it is sunny outside," as "there's thunderstorm outside," so you can, apparently, interpret a document that clearly limits federal power as a sweeping grant of power to the federal government. But clearly that's a false "interpretation."

every vague policy, unless sealed in meaning by legal documents themselves, allows a certain amount of pivot. The founding fathers can state it as they please, but they do not have the authority over the entire constitution anymore, because they’re dead. Jefferson admitted that the nation is for the living, and the wishes of the dead are not our basis for law, only the documents we keep. As such, even when its creators had a different interpretation, we can still pivot the interpretation within its written leeway as necessary, because the constitution is built to evolve. We are not chai…  Read morened to the ideals of the dead, we emerge FROM them, and make our own changes using their opinions as an understanding of the past. A thunderstorm and the sunny day are widely different and objectively separate in their own ways, but laws and interpretations of them are subjective, there’s a large reach of what could be allowed when trying to understand what it should or shouldn’t mean in the legal aspect. It’s not a simple one or the other, but a series of shades of the same color, and we just decide what that color actually is by our own interpretation.

You think the constitution is a "living, breathing," document, then. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The States ratified the Constitution on the explicit condition that the federal government would only have those powers explicitly spelled out in the contract they made among themselves. The government is the agent of the States, created by the States for the benefit of the States, and that agent was created in the contract on the explicit understanding that if it went beyond those powers the ratifying States gave to it, the States had every right to withdraw from the contra…  Read morect by secession, or, if deemed a favorable alternative, interpose their sovereignty against its schemes via nullification. In legal theory, you may have been unaware, the understanding of those who ratified any contract or agreement is what matters, and the States, as individual parties ratifying a compact, explicitly spelled out precisely those limitations you claim should not bind us today. As the State governments have never surrendered those rights, you'd need a whole new Constitution in order for the government to be able to do whatever the h–ll it pleases, as you apparently want it to do. There is no room for any elastic interpretation. I know the "elastic clauses" by heart that you claim allow the federal government to commit all manner of mischief – the "General Welfare" "Necessary and Proper" "Commerce" and "Post Roads" clauses, but I have looked into – in great depth – those clauses and could only conclude that they were not meant as a vast grant of authority to the federal government. If desired, I can prove this assertion in depth & handle each alleged "elastic clause" individually to debunk your entire position (which I've done before with the "General Welfare" to your embarrassment). I can provide hundreds of quotations from the ratifiers about this and explain it all to you. What would you like to know?