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
2. It’s unwise and even reckless to run all spending bills through a single committee for at least three independent reasons
First, it makes no sense from a workload-distribution standpoint
3. The staggering size, cost, and complexity of the federal government are such that no sane person would assign all of the workload associated with all spending bills to one committee
Responsibility for spending bills should be distributed broadly among all who have been elected to either chamber of Congress—not just to a select few who happen to serve on one committee
🧵1. Congress should be *passing* the SAVE Act to stop noncitizens from voting—not paying leftists to lobby against it
The Labor/HHS spending bill advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee contains an earmark giving $500,000 to leftists falsely claiming the SAVE Act would “disenfranchise millions of Americans”
🧵 1. The massive fraud schemes in Minnesota—billions in stolen federal funds from child nutrition, autism services, housing stabilization & childcare programs—aren’t just a failure of oversight
These areas (welfare, education aid, health services) lie far outside Congress’s enumerated powers under the Constitution
And they likely represent just the tip of a much larger iceberg—with other schemes going on in many other states
2. Strictly speaking, the federal government has no sound constitutional authority—rooted in the plain text and original understanding of that document—to run or fund state-level social welfare programs like these
3. When Congress acts where it’s not authorized, that’s an overreach
As the Tenth Amendment makes clear, functions not deemed federal by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund Somali daycare centers
🧵Return of the Walking Earmarks: A Deadly Epidemic🧵
1/ After a decade-long moratorium, Congress has reverted to “congressionally directed spending”—the polite, new name for pork-barrel projects subtly slipped into must-pass bills with almost no review or opportunity for debate
2/ Earmarks are sold as “only 1% of spending,” but that 1% creates a corrupting process that helps perpetuate $2 trillion annual deficits
Let’s talk about why they’re so toxic ok
3/ Legalized Vote “Purchasing”
Members trade votes on massive spending bills for pet projects back home
“You vote for my bridge to nowhere, I’ll vote for your turtle tunnel”
It’s not about good policy
It’s about buying votes with taxpayer money—all to make politicians look good
🚨🧵🚨 1/10 Government shutdowns aren’t a bug—they’re a feature of a system that’s grown too big and too expensive
They illustrate why James Madison insisted the federal government’s powers must be “few and defined”
Let’s break it down
2/10 In Federalist 45, Madison wrote:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
He wasn’t being poetic
He was drawing a line in the sand
3/10 “Few and defined” includes:
• National defense
• Foreign affairs
• Interstate & foreign commerce
• Coining money
• Post offices & roads
There are a few others, but that’s most of it
Everything else?
Left to the states—“or to the people”
But today?
The feds touch everything—including education, healthcare, light bulbs, toilets, and your kids’ lunch at school
At the “No Kings” rallies, we saw countless, open calls for violence against President Trump and other Republicans
When pressed, some Democrats will shrug and insist that “both sides have bad apples who sometimes say bad things, but that doesn’t mean they reflect the views of their party as a whole”
That sounds like a good argument—and in the past it might have been
But open calls for violence among Democrats have recently become so common, widely accepted, and even celebrated—as they certainly were at the “No Kings” rallies—that this argument rings hollow
Those engaging in such behavior over the weekend appear to have done so with full, unbridled approval of their fellow protesters
And this happened in so many times—and in so many different locations—that it’s impossible to dismiss them as one-off exceptions
Please share this post if you agree, commenting on any examples you found especially troubling
This guy’s promoting the killing of federal law enforcement personnel—with the apparent approval of the crowd
Dick proudly announces that he wants to “kill the president”