17. Republicans in Congress therefore need to take a stand—holding hostage something Democrats care about by attaching the REINS Act to that thing
18. To that end, Republicans should attach the REINS Act to any bill to increase the debt ceiling, forcing true compromise in an area where it’s badly needed—here, restoring separation of powers through the REINS Act
19. The REINS Act would force a restoration of the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution, by returning the lawmaking power to the legislative branch
20. But this thread is about federalism—the Constitution’s mandate that the powers of the federal government remain “few and defined,” as James Madison described them in Federalist 45 (while referring to the powers reserved to the states as “numerous and indefinite”)
So what does the REINS Act have to do with restoring federalism?
Everything
21. Remember: our drift from separation of powers (in which Congress began shifting the task of lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch) didn’t begin until the Supreme Court dramatically expanded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, contrary to the Constitution’s text, structure, and original understanding
22. It follows logically that, if Congress can begin to restore separation of powers (as it would do by enacting the REINS Act) there would soon be far less new federal law being created each year, as elected lawmakers would be more reluctant to impose new burdens on the American people—far more reluctant than federal bureaucrats who never have to stand for election
23. In other words, if every expansion of federal law had to be enacted by Congress—whose members must stand for election at regular intervals—there would be less federal law being created each year
24. As surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (and every day thereafter), members of Congress will rediscover federalism—as it will be in their interest to do so—once the REINS Act has become law
25. Follow if you’d like to read more posts like this one, and like and share if you’d agree that Congress should attach the REINS Act to any bill raising or suspending the debt ceiling
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 1/ I’ve been asked today why I think Jeffrey Epstein *might* have been a gov asset. Let’s unpack the case. His connections, wealth, & influence raise red flags. Was he just a financier? Or something more?
2/ Epstein’s plea deal in 2008 was unusually lenient. Sex-trafficking charges dropped, 13 months in a cushy jail with work release. Prosecutors hinted at “intelligence” ties. The U.S. attorney handling the case said he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”
Coincidence?
3/ His personal network was a who’s who list that would make a king blush: politicians, royalty, tech moguls, etc. Why did so many powerful people trust a convicted felon? Was he collecting dirt for someone? Blackmail operations often use honeypots—Epstein’s islands fit the bill.
🧵 1. A judge has just issued a temporary restraining order “TRO” halting the implementation of an unambiguous statute—duly enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President—that defunds Planned Parenthood
2. Given the lack of ambiguity in the statutory text, one can surmise that the TRO was likely predicated on an assertion that the statute is unconstitutional
3. What part of the Constitution prohibits Congress from defunding Planned Parenthood?
1. Americans fought for freedom to govern themselves, not to be ruled by faceless bureaucrats. When unelected officials write federal laws, they bypass the Constitution and strip power from the people. Here’s why this matters.
2. The Constitution vests legislative power in Congress—elected representatives accountable to YOU. Bureaucrats in agencies like the EPA or ATF aren’t elected. They don’t answer to voters. Yet they churn out thousands of pages of rules with the force of law. That’s not how our government is supposed to work under the Constitution.
3. Example: The ATF’s 2022 “ghost gun” rule redefined firearms under federal law, affecting millions. No vote, no debate—just a stroke of a pen. Congress didn’t get a say, and neither did you. This is how liberty erodes.
🧵 1/ Until the 1930s, state and local governments outspent the federal government—combined. In 1900, states and localities handled most public services, from schools to roads. Federal spending was a measly 2.7% of GDP, while state and local was higher.
2/ This wasn’t just numbers—it was principle. States and localities were closer to the people, responsive to local needs—and indeed most needs. The federal government stepped in mainly for things like defense and trade. Limited scope, limited spending. That’s how the Founders designed it.
3/ The tide turned with the New Deal in the 1930s. Federal spending surged past state and local combined and didn’t look back. World Wars and Great Depression policies centralized power, disregarding the Constitution’s strict limitations on federal authority. By 2019, feds spent 55% of all government funds, states and locals just 45%.
🧵 1/ No state should dictate to political parties the process by which they nominate candidates
Ever
It ends badly for everyone—especially for conservatives
2/ Utah does this—through a law known as “SB54”
It has been disastrous for political parties—especially the Utah Republican Party
3/ If you live in a state that denies political parties their right to choose their own candidate-selection procedures, you should ask your lawmakers to change that
I first met Jim Comey 22 years ago when I was an assistant U.S. attorney in Salt Lake City
2/
Mr. Comey paid a visit to the U.S. attorney’s office in Utah in response to an invitation from my former boss (and longtime friend and mentor), then-U.S. Attorney Paul Warner
3/