The Washington Post writes today about Trump whisperer Russ Vought:
Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-constitutional’ vision for second term
“We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”
I read Vought's "seminal essay" so you don't have to, and it turns out to be a lot less interesting than you might think. Vought thinks we're living in a post-constitutional era not because he wants to shred the Constitution but because he thinks liberals have wrecked things over the past hundred years. He's one of those conservatives who wants to return to the Lochner era and get rid of all the Progressive Era and New Deal projects that created independent agencies and turned interstate commerce into a justification for overweening federal power. Yawn.
This is mostly crazy stuff, but it's a dime a dozen among Federalist Society types these days. Still, maybe Vought goes a little further than most. Here he is explaining why it's OK for states to take control of the border:
We have looked to the Constitution for what the Founders would do if one was a current governor of a border state, and lo and behold, we found Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, articulating that states cannot engage in war making unless invaded. And in our research, we found that they did not mean threats from foreign nation states, but rather smugglers, militias, Indian tribes, etc.
This is ridiculous. "Invasion," both then and now, refers to an organized force attacking the country with violence and malice. Individuals acting independently with no intent to conquer or kill do not constitute an invasion under any plausible interpretation.
I wonder sometimes how these folks actually want to govern the country. I mean, suppose you agreed with their basic criticism that agencies can't be allowed independence from the president; that Congress can't delegate its rulemaking powers; and that most of the civil service should be political, changing with each new administration.
Suppose you agreed with all that. We're still living in a country of 330 million people and an era of immense complexity. It's not physically possible for Congress to do all the rulemaking. It's not physically possible to appoint a million new civil servants every few years. It's not physically possible to govern a jet-age, atomic-age, computer-age, internet-age society using rules from 1787—or even 1905.
So in practical terms, what are they really thinking? I find it a mystery.
They’re thinking that all that governing should be done by property owners and employers. It’s a modern twist on feudalism.
That, I think, is indeed the heart of the matter. Constitutional readings and the like are just excuses, just as xenophobia is a tried and true method to get the masses to agree. When "invaders" are property, be it slaves or Slovenian beauties, they suddenly may (or must) come.
Pretty sure they still miss the plantations of the south. Just like with taxes, they all just know they'll be rich soon and own one of the plantations themselves.
"Hello friends! Want to share an amazing opportunity that's been a game-changer for me. It's all about maximizing your earning potential online. Don't miss out on this chance to level up your financial game" Check it out here====>) https://shorturl.at/pqjkM
Life, Liberty, Property. Classic American Creed!
Been saying this for years. For these folks, the only legitimate function of government is protection of private property rights.
Not everyone's, only the select few.
exactly this. corporations, capitalists, private security, private contracts, private law.
in their view government exists to fight foreign wars (when it's good for the economy) and suppress citizen outrage
Vought thinks we're living in a post-constitutional era not because he wants to shred the Constitution but because he thinks liberals have wrecked things over the past hundred years.
This is old hat. But it's very dangerous old hat. Because this "belief" * is how/why many rightists justify things like coup d'état attempts and every manner of illegal or unethical activity: they claim that the constitution as properly construed only allows for policy outcomes consistent with right wing ideology. Thus Democrats (according to this view) are an intrinsically illegitimate, treasonous, anti-constitutional outfit. And needless to say, when your'e dealing with a bunch of folks determined to bring down the constitution, anything goes in your attempts to defend said constitution, amirite? It's all very convenient.
The right, in short, basically behaves as if Democrats don't have a legitimate right to govern. And they've acted like this for decades (the Watergate break-in was more than half a century ago!).
*I use scare quotes because I seriously doubt most right wingers in positions of leadership genuinely believe this. It's just a convenient myth they tell themselves to justify their gross criminality and contempt for the constitution.
Scare quotes are not needed when actions confirm a belief...
Scare quotes are not needed when actions confirm a belief...
But I do not think the actions do confirm such a belief. I think it's highly likely that:
A) Many US rightists know full well that social democratic or socially liberal or progressive policies do not violate the United States Constitution.
B) They pretend to hold this view to give a sheen of legitimacy or respectability to their abhorrent political activities.
I can't read minds. So I could be wrong. And no doubt a lot of the MAGA foot soldiers are duped into buying this position. But no, I can't imagine someone like Steve Bannon or this Vought fellow actually believes their own schtick. They're cynical to their cores. Just like their orange God-Emperor.
Many socially progressive policies do violate the US Constitution. For example, many of them exceed Congress's powers under Article I Section 8 and 9.
For example, I fail to see how wealth taxes or estste taxes are allowed under these sections or the 16th Amendment.
You're crazy. Article 1, section 8 says "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises..."
The general government under the Articles of Confederation initially raised all of it's revenues by billing the states for a share of the needed funds based on the wealth of their citizens. When they discovered that Pennsylvania was engaging in hanky-panky with property valuations, they switched to an assessment based on population. This is the origin of the 3/5 rule for slaves.
They wrote that rule into the constitution because the founders assumed that the main source of revenue for the Federal Government would be based on using population as a proxy for wealth. Instead taxes on alcohol and tariffs provided all the funds needed by the US government until the Civil War when an income tax was imposed.
Everyone was pretty shocked when near the end of the 19th century a Supreme Court every bit as wacko as the one we have now declared a Federal income tax to be unconstitutional. They eventually passed an amendment to specifically permit one.
Probably they should have instead passed an amendment declaring that the Supreme Court had no power to restrict the government's power to tax. That's what the founders intended. They certainly didn't intend to create a government with less power than that of the Articles of Confederation.
You did not bother reading Article I Section 9 which prohibits all direct taxes unless they are proportionate and based on the census.
I challenge you to provide evidence that anyone was particularly surprised that SCOTUS invalidated the income tax given the clear language of Section 9.
As for the idea that "Probably they should have instead passed an amendment declaring that the Supreme Court had no power to restrict the government's power to tax. That's what the founders intended. ", well that is just idiotic.
1. Article I Section 9.
2. Your position would allow, for example, taxing blacks at different rates than whites, Republicans at different rates than Democrats, or the pro-government press at different rates than the anti-government press. All are obviously un-Constitutional, but if the Supreme Court had no power to restrict the government's power to tax then it would have no power to restrict or prevent any of these taxes.
Your position would allow, for example, taxing blacks at different rates than whites, Republicans at different rates than Democrats, or the pro-government press at different rates than the anti-government press.
No, it would not allow this. The 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law, which these examples would violate. Further, you apparently didn't read the bit of the Constitution you keep citing. From Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
You are ignoring that last bit, about how excise taxes need to be uniform.
Ignorance is what MFer does best.
Many socially progressive policies do violate the US Constitution.
Exhibit A.
For example, I fail to see how wealth taxes or estste taxes are allowed under these sections or the 16th Amendment.
That's because you arrived at your conclusion, and then went looking at the primary sources.
1) The earliest federal estate tax was instituted from 1797 to 1805. Technically, it was a stamp tax, but it applied to estates. So, the estate tax was not any sort of late arriving policy.
2) The estate tax is considered an excise tax, imposed upon a specific good, service, or activity. In the case of the estate tax, the activity in question is the transference of wealth from one generation to another. Like all excise taxes, the estate tax is considered an indirect tax, and so it is not subject to the apportionment rules of Article I, Section 9.
You may not like that definition, but it has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times.
3) After the 16th Amendment, even if you don't like the definition of the estate tax as an excise tax, the estate tax is still constitutional. The amendment reads:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If an inheritance is not an activity that can be subject to an excise tax, then it must be income. Congress can tax income from "whatever source derived." In this case, it's derived from the transfer of wealth from the deceased to the recipient.
The farthest you're going to get in arguing that this is unconstitutional is that, technically, it is the receipt of wealth that is income, rather than its transference. In that case, it should be set up as an inheritance tax, rather than an estate tax. But that's a pretty weak reed to hang the argument upon.
1. The Stamp Tax was not a tax on the estate itself. As such, no problem.
2. The estate tax also applies to estates that are not being transferred to the next generation and moreover is a tax on the estate itself before any such transfer, not a tax on the transfer.
3. Congress could definitely tax inheritance income. However, the estate tax is NOT a tax on inheritance income. It is a tax on the estate and paid by the estate. I see no reason to conclude that this is a "weak reed".
1) The Stamp Tax was an estate tax, though it also taxed other things. A will had to have a stamp in order to be processed in probate. A stamp was needed for legacies and intestate distributions. The cost of the stamp went up as the value of the property went up.
That's an estate tax.
2) Except that there are reductions in the estate tax depending upon who the property is transferred to. For spouses ad qualified charities, no estate tax is paid.
Please explain how the estate can be taxed prior to transfer, but the amount depends upon who/what it is transferred to.
3) If you are relying upon the distinction between the tax being paid by the estate and being paid by the inheritor, that's a really weak reed. You are arguing that the constitutionality is determined by technical aspects that make no practical difference.
That's a dumb argumet.
Geez, MF, the guy who advocates for murdering protesters, got whooped.
Estate taxes have existed for longer than income taxes. Yuck, dude.
I would posit that it doesn't matter what is in one's heart or mind when one visits violence, whether verbal, political, or physical, on others. Hence not needing the quotation marks, the pudding is being shoved down your throat.
I would posit that it doesn't matter what is in one's heart or mind when one visits violence...
Oh, I quite agree it doesn't matter very much. Nonetheless I prefer accuracy. And to my mind, the view that the commanding heights of US right wingery are sincere in their views regarding the US constitution is an inaccurate description of reality.
I agree. These people aren’t thinking, just feeling like they should have more money & power than they do & part of that is their belief that because anything they say is obviously more clever and articulate than anything the lessers say they just don’t need to explain anything logically….
Thanks for reading these people, Kevin, so the rest of us don’t have to.
This, along with the better posts here, is the reality. Democrats, and more importantly the ideas, people, and kind of society Dems represent, in the hearts of American ‘conservatism’ are ontologically illegitimate, an enemy and/or natural inferior that has no place whatsoever in the power structure American 'conservatives' envision. What's interesting about the article is how the proponents of this worldview - and I have to disagree that most ‘conservatives' don't see the world this way, and only go along to get along; that's wrong, it’s at the spoken or unspoken core of modern American ‘conservatism’ - see this as a propitious time to go mainstream with it. It fits, of course, the path of regressive American 'conservatism' over the past sixty years, and certainly has always had a place in this country's sociopoitical matrix, but such a public announcement does mark a sense of confidence for this particularly dismissive kind of amplification of the authoritarian project.
You don’t have to resort to too-easily dismissed comparisons to 1990’s Rwanda, or 1930’s Germany, or any other authoritarian program of demonization and dehumanization (a zero-sum process of ego and status enhancement, ultimately rooted in the decision of who survives and who doesn’t) to see and feel this as an existential threat, because that’s what it is. Is it an immediately meaningful threat? That’s beside the point. This is socio-political Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, where seemingly small advantages of leverage, always and ruthlessly followed by further advantages of leverage, combine over time to broken arms and legs, where knockout punches never come but you’re carried off in a stretcher. The key word is ruthless, and American liberals need to internalize this, because to the forces behind these movements the war is existential or at least the fear of this, imagined or otherwise.
Nobody who is secure in themselves as a person, as a human being, as a culture, as a society, lives in this world of existential dread. Again, is a lot of it performative greed or selfishness or ambition? Sure, but this itself is a place of insecurity, same end. And this level of insecurity can and will do whatever it has to to ameliorate the dread. And that is concerning.
Thinking?! It's straight from the secessionist papers. There is a hierarchy, and it probably has more to do with melanin content in the skin and the primary sexual characteristics than not. Followed by the creed professed and then their stance on economic positions. Any attempt to move between places within that hierarchy without permission from those residing at the top is verboten.
Please. You think the idea of governing has ever crossed their minds? The purpose of Congress is TV and likes. Governing has nothing to do with why they came to Congress.
"The purpose of REPUBLICANS in Congress is TV and likes. Governing has nothing to do with why they came to Congress." Fixed it for you.
Plus one.
I expect Trump's inner circle would like to create an authoritarian state where executive power was delegated to regional officials and sub-officials within broad guidelines established in the White House. The most senior officials could perhaps be called 'Gauleiters'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Nazi_Germany
Existing governors like Abbott, Ivey and DeSantis could be trusted to serve in this capacity. Jellyfish like Kemp and Mike DeWine would need to be placed under the direction of party loyalists like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Vance. Radical Marxists like Hochul and Newsom would, of course, be removed from office and replaced by White House appointees; Elise Stefanik and Darrell Issa would be suitable, although California might benefit from an outsider's fresh perspective. Kari Lake, perhaps.
Many people will protest that such a program is inconceivable in America; that it could never be introduced successfully. And they are almost certainly correct.
For now.
New rulers coming in and reforming administration in the pre-modern era is spicy for me. I LOVE when someone like Basil II, Abd Ar Rahman III, Qin Shihuangdi, Chandragupta, Cyrus etc. comes in and rebirths the state.
But thats the premodern era. Not now.
Reading about those "regional officials" made me think of this scene from Star Wars:
Grand Moff Tarkin : The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge : That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Grand Moff Tarkin : The regional governors now have direct control over their territories.
Prophetic?
A legislative body is not a bureaucracy. That dialogue reflects common misconceptions and unfortunately reinforces them.
You mean right-wing military types Get Stuff Wrong!?! Oh noes, say it ain't so!!!
"What are they thinking?"
They're not thinking. Conservatism is strongly associated with a resistance to look for complicated, but better, solutions. Instead, it's knee-jerk reactions, all the way down.
"... a series of irritable mental gestures ..."
It's pure Underpants Gnome thinking:
1. Destroy Government Oversight
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
They all have different ideas for step 2, but none of them are willing to think as far as step 4.
They're people who believe in ancient astronauts and the Search for Atlantis. It's an aesthetic trying to make sense of vague impressions because those impressions are more comforting than reading up on anything only to find that thousands have been there before them and these kinds of foundational questions are long settled, revealing how little they really know.
It creates a fantasy of their interest that can dismiss their anxieties by exploiting imaginary anxieties, and then they can get others to share in it, it's fundamentally a security blanket.
Fascism. That's what conservatives want.
Any other easy to answer questions?
It's the same kind of thinking as they use in their version of Christian supremacy. In order to achieve a truly Christian society, it is permissible to violate Biblical law. The ends justify the means. This has been the MO for religious tyranny all through history: it's OK to commit mass murder, massive theft, wage war on someone who has done nothing to you... because it's for the greater glory of God.
In order to have a "true" America, it will be necessary to break all the laws of America. The ends justify the means.
(Or, as they used to say ever so succinctly: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Only now they mean the entire country.)
Kevin, did you bother checking the dictionary before telling us the definition of "invasion"?
Google helpfully provides definitions from the otherwise insanely expensive Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion+definition
"an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"there was a brief pitch invasion when United scored""
This meaning seems to directly contradict your definition. It applies to unorganized and possibly non violent and non malicious entry by large numbers of people into a place they are not supposed to go. That would exactly describe the current situation with illegal immigration.
Which meaning of "invasion" was likely being used by the founders is a fact intensive question. However, if we consider the reasons for that clause, it seems unlikely that at the time of the founding the courts would have required a state faced with a large and unexpected incursion of immigrants (say a few thousand boats from Russia full of new aspiring Americans) to wait for Congress to act before responding.
I'm sure you're right: the founding fathers were thinking of sports when they wrote those words, no doubt.
Smarter trolls, please.
I wonder if you are really this stupid or just think you are being a smart alec.
The fact that a sentence in a dictionary illustrating the meaning of a word refers to a particular topic does not mean it is only in reference to that topic.
For example, the definition also provides:
'an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812"'
Now, I hate to break it to you but this sense of the word "invasion" also applies to similar events in which the French are not invading, the Russians are not invaded, and that happen before or after 1812.
You look at the definition: "an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."
Nothing here says this meaning is restricted to sports.
And so now you pivot to a definition that includes armed incursion. How many of those seeking asylum at the southern border are armed? I wonder if you are really this stupid or just think you are being a smart Alec.
Smarter trolls, please.
I quote again the defintion: "an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."
This sense of the word invasion does not require the invaders to be armed or organized.
Yes, this definition:
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
I'm sure you're right: the founding fathers were thinking of sports when they wrote those words, no doubt.
Smarter trolls, please.
“Insanely expensive?” Amazon is selling one right now for $12.30. How poor are you, MotherFucker? Perhaps you should get out of your hovel and get a job so you can afford what amounts to a meal at most fast food places these days, troll.
https://www.amazon.com/Paperback-Oxford-English-Dictionary-Dictionaries/dp/0199640947/
Good lord, you're an idiot.
"an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
Your entire interpretation depends upon ignoring the phrase "place or sphere of activity." A country doesn't meet that description. So, you wrote five paragraphs of complete vapor.
Riiiiight. The British Invasion of the 60's is what these old dead guys were thinking of. And the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with pacifying the South and coddling their fear of a massive slave uprising.
Smarter Nazi-sympathizing trolls please.
Wrong end of the telescope, to ask how they want to govern-- a good question, a valid one, but these guys are coming at it from the other side. Point to any one thing they don't like, like the EPA, and they'll all bay out together "Nooo, nooo, you can't tell us how many mpg our cars have to get, it says right here that all rights are reserved to the states and the people" like a pack of hounds.
But ask them about a big specific issue, say hypothetically how should we respond to a sudden global pandemic, and they'd give you a million different answers because it isn't something they've seen the big bad gummint do so they could then decide they didn't like it. If they were in charge and it happened IRL they'd end up with an incoherent patchwork, chaotic and inconsistent.
They're reactive. They read the Constitution-- and badly-- for specific points that they can use to react to particular things they're pissed about. How it all fits is not their concern.
This invasion clause nonsense is a good example. This is a long clause that says states can't take any war-preparation measures without consent of Congress, listing an escalating series of steps from keeping troops in peacetime and ending in actually making war, and including forming alliances. The clause is centrally a restriction on states that's focused on their independent war-making abilities-- full-time military forces, navies, military alliances-- and says they can't have them, the inverse of Congress's exclusive war-making authority. States *are* expected to have citizen militias for self-defense, but definitely not full-time military enlistments. The exception is if a state is actually invaded or the danger is too imminent to delay, and as Kevin says, the context makes clear, by organized forces of an external power.
But all that's ignored in favor of one little phrase that can be tortured wantonly enough, and expanded by "our research" into God knows what, to cover what he has in mind right now.
And that's what so much of so-called originalism is-- "Nooo, you can't do that, it says right here ..."
It's like having a religious discussion with someone always pulling out Bible "quotes" to support their position. In need be, they'll just string together disparate quotes to support what they want to say. All the while ignoring the big picture, e.g. that whole love thing.
This is pretty "sovereign citizen" adjacent nonsense, end of story. But they have to convince everyone else when they try to overthrow the government (again) that they had a good reason to do so. "What we're doing would be illegal of course, if there were still laws!"
So, what you're saying is, these folks are "the ends justify the means" people.
And I think we already knew this by their reaction to everything -- J6, post-conviction of Trump, everything Alito does, etc.
There's going to be crazy looting and pillaging by these fine folks if they win. They have so much already, but it's just not enough. Lefty folks need to start thinking about what they will do in response. This is the sort of thing we will face.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/opinion/presbyterian-church-evangelical-canceled.html
"The experience was shocking. At times, it was terrifying. And so we did what we always did in times of trouble: We turned to our church for support and comfort. Our pastors and close friends came to our aid, but support was hardly universal. The church as a whole did not respond the way it did when I deployed. Instead, we began encountering racism and hatred up close, from people in our church and in our church school."
It's already ugly for some with a public profile... and this guy is a conservative of sorts!
And if that doesn't disturb Mr. Drum's "everything is A-OK" vibe, maybe this will. Joe Biden will win the most votes come November, but I don't think he will be president on January 21, 2025.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-georgia-laboratory-rig-2024-1235034510/
"During Georgia’s presidential primary in March, Fulton County Republican Board of Elections member Julie Adams refused to certify the results of a primary contest that Trump won without question. In May, Adams sued the board with help from lawyers at the Trump-connected nonprofit America First Policy Institute — seeking judicial backing for her claims that Board of Elections members have the authority to deny the certification of election results.
Democrats see Adams’ move as part of a pattern. “The MAGA Republicans have made it clear they are planning to try to block certification of November’s election, and this is a transparent attempt to set the stage for that fight,” the Georgia Democratic Party said in a statement responding to Adams’ suit."
Or does Mr. Drum think I'm engaging in bogus doomsaying?
Spot on
David French is kind of an idiot, tho.
Since trump posted about eliminating the Constitution, then denied it. it should have been obvious that this was yet another of his handlers' actial proposals for his next administration. He likes trial balloons, even when they're so bizarre that they must be immediately be disallowed because of the resulting outcry. There should be greater backlash to such insidious proposals, but we seem to have too many people who still believe that he shouldn't be taken literally, tthst he's just exaggerating.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230
Part of a well organized campaign. Mike Flynn, Bannon, Orban level subversion of democracy.
"I find it a mystery."?
It is legal mumbo-jumbo designed to provide a fig-leaf for Trump and the right wing SCOTUS so that they can ignore the Constitution and rule of law. See, for example, Citizens United or Shelby County vs Holder. See also: Texas or Florida.
I think they think "Rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven"
Trump, whom the press keeps calling a populist, keeps filling the ranks of his advisors with people who want to destroy the entire welfare state.
The most frustrating part of this is, because they're going to achieve this via the courts, it will take many years. People won't realize how bad it is until after Trump is dead, and they'll refuse to place the blame on him.
Regarding "It's not physically possible to appoint a million new civil servants every few years", that's neither the goal nor the point. Removing civil service protections for large numbers of federal employees means (a) being able to appoint loyalists into lots of key positions (for example, Justice Department prosecutors), and (b) being able to fire bureaucrats who believe that following the law is justification for going against the wishes of the President and his staff.
Bonus: being able to appoint lots of family members and friends and supporters and donors to well-paying jobs - no civil service exams, no pesky qualifications, no ethics issues.
Regarding "It's not physically possible for Congress to do all the rulemaking", that too misses the point. The goal isn't to transfer power to Congress, it's to (implicitly) **remove** power from the government - power to protect against pollution, power to protect against consumer fraud, power to protect against monopolies, etc. If you can remove government power, the beneficiaries will be those who already have disproportionate **private** power.
They are such originalists that they could look again at private property and reinstitute the ownership of people. It’s of course a states right issue and it’s in the Bible (somewhere).
Somebody should put this on a yard sign,
https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1dbglgl/if_youre_in_a_union_and_you_plan_on_voting_for/?cache-bust=1717949413966
I mean the Democratic party should be putting this out as a yard sign.
It's just an endless variation of the Wilhoit rule.
The Constitution, laws, courts...they are merely tools to enforce the right ordering of society and the moment they stop doing that, they need to be destroyed.
Republicans do better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. So what the angst? Simple, they wealth gap doesn't grow much, and might even shrink a bit because everyone does better. And we can't have that.
This isn't complicated. The Kochtopus wants to destroy the regulatory state. They're quite open about it. Why? Because without regulation they'll be able to grub out the last ton of coal and barrel of oil, and be able to spill the oil without being forced to pick up after themselves. But what about making governance impossible? Not their problem.
All conservatives are retards. Most democrats too.
99.9% of the population, really.
"So in practical terms, what are they really thinking? I find it a mystery."
Shove out the people who get in their way. Then lock the doors.
It would be physically possible for Congress to do all the rulemaking if they increased the Congressional staff budget by multiple orders of magnitude, but the transition would be a huge hassle.
Yeah, "post-Constitutional" means dictatorship. And he's trying to justify it with the usual mess of whataboutism and false equivalency.