All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
Silly posturing. If a law isn’t constitutional, challenge it.
No “cap & trade” environmental regulation.
I’m not sure if cap & trade is the best legislation, but too often “no cap & trade” is the motto of global warming deniers.
Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
Moronic. Look at the mess California is in. There is more to governing than saying no to tax increases.
Single-rate income tax.
Benefits the rich. Why do so many middle classers carry their water?
Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
Got one. It’s called the House and Senate.
Statutory upper limit on government spending.
Got one. It’s called the budget.
No public health care.
You lost this one, get over it.
Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
Yep, that’s what we need, fewer regulations on drilling. One oil spill must not be enough.
Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
Pork is hard to define and it’s insignificant in the overall budget. This is like swatting mosquitos as you’re being attacked by hyenas.
Repeal recent tax increases.
Moronic. Why do you think the budget is so far in the red? Hint: Bush Tax Cuts.
Point noted.
In the contract, I don’t think all GOPers would want to run on all those points.
It would not get the GOP base hopping mad
I don’t see it as getting much support from indies and Dems. I think a lot of rational people are starting to realize that taxes cannot be continually and perpetually cut, and that requiring supermajorities leads to political paralysis. What the contract seems to be doing is building filibusters into the system and choking it. I just can’t see any Dems or moderate indies getting behind it.
Hey, tell you what. We can argue politics all over the place. I’d actually be interested in people, particularly folks like BobLibDem, outlining a response to RT’s OP. You know, knowing the foibles and frailties of the US public, the necessity of keeping the base they already have, what would liberals think would be a winning (not necessarily good, or nice or keeping with any sorts or morals or ethics) strategy for the Pubs to win over a majority of the voters?
I agree that some of the economic ideas being proposed are bad. Talking about lowering taxes and reducing the deficit are signs of somebody that’s avoiding economic reality. And claims about pork and waste are smokescreens - as an actual percentage of the budget they’re minute. The only way you’re going to see real cuts in government spending it doing things like ending overseas military operations or abolishing social security. If this is what the authors of the Contract From America are proposing they should say so openly - this is a pretty major change in American policies and the voters should know what they’re asking for.
But overall it could be worse. It’s pretty much a capitalist libertarian agenda rather than a family values/America first agenda. No proposals for outlawing the Spanish language or gay marriages or flag burning.
As the Wikipedia article on it states, the 10th Amendment is simply a truism. It restates the obvious to make sure that the obvious is understood:
‘The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”’
But what about the jobless rate? That’s going to be Issue #1 this November. What can the Pubs offer, consistent with their politics, that offers some plausible (at least, plausible to their base) chance of reducing it?
They’d probably claim that keeping out immigrants will fix the job problem. It wouldn’t, of course, but they could probably convince enough voters of it anyway.
Even so, the constitution as originally ratified saw the federal government as having few and enumerated powers and the states having the vast remainder.
To have a position that reverses this, is at odds with the founders’ intentions.
True, but what they intended and what they wrote are separate things. I think when it comes down to it, though you might intend to lock the government down on what it should or shouldn’t do, there’s no real agreeable answer beyond a few finite, obvious things. I mean, technically speaking the Federal government shouldn’t have a thing to do with blocking up the oil spill (unless you include the N&P clause), and yet everyone seems to think that it obviously should be in their provenance to step in and do it just because the central government is the ultimate power for the people to project what they want done. When it came time for the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to actually choose to block the Federal government from having free reign, they factually didn’t. They said, well, you never know what’s going to happen and if it seems like the central government really needs to do something, then cutting that off is harmful. They might have been able to envision the scope of involvement that the Federal government has in general life today because of that, but all of the choices that led to this point were based entirely on the full right of our legally elected Representatives to pinpoint things that seemed necessary and that were in their purview or best accomplished under their purview and made it so based simply on the Necessary and Proper clause.
Reduce taxes on corporations and businesses and shift their burden to incomes of the wealthy.
Support moderate regulation of the financial industry
Ignore the health care bill and see what happens
Limit pork barrel spending to a bare minimum
With the exception of national emergency no new major spending projects
Toughen up security on the border but provide a work program for illegals already here.
Decriminalize use of marijuana and use it for revenue purposes
Remain strong on Iran and North Korea but do not provoke war
Continue withdrawal from Iraq (possible due to the policies of Bush) and maintain the fight in Afghanistan with a focus on building up infrastructure
Similarly be wary of Russia and China, do not advocate total elimination of nuclear stockpile
Maintain a strong prolife plank
Advocate a broad-based energy plan (NO CAP AND TRADE) including increasing offshore drilling and nuclear power. Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident
1 Are you kidding? The base will not support increased taxes on ANYBODY.
2 The business base doesn’t want anyone regulated
3 Ignoring a bill that has been the bread and butter of striking fear in the masses doesn’t seem to be a good strategic move
7 Hardy har har. Like the teabaggers are going to get behind that one.
9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don’t think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.
12 Why would ANYONE put increased offshore drilling in their platform?
This “isolated incident” is merely the worst environmental disaster this country has ever faced, by far, and is going to harm the economies of every single gulf coast state.
Yeah, I think trying to downplay it is a really bad idea.
This country needs to move away from oil as a means of providing energy/transportation. Period.