What are the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government is unconstitutional

What are the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government is unconstitutional

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >extremist decision
      Going against the fucking Constitution is the extremist decision.
      >Jay Kuo
      Some foreign pos thinks he is American. He is mistaken. These expats are swine.
      >Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly it prob means the dissolution if the supreme Court

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That would require a constitutional amendment. Does that sound realistic?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >prior to these two recent extremist decisions
      The Supreme Court deciding they shouldn't interfere with something and that the states can't interfere with something else is an extremist position?
      You'd think that a court writing their own laws and extra regulation for gun ownership would be considered more extreme.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The supreme court protects the people's constitutional rights dummy. or at least is supposed to.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You'd think that a court writing their own laws and extra regulation for gun ownership would be considered more extreme.
        I consider it very extreme, if a state does this they should be kicked out of the union

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The non-delegation doctrine ought to be a no-brainer. Clearly the framers didn't intend for Congress to delegate its powers to the executive branch, else why invest Congress with those powers? It's just so obvious, but it's been muddied by a century of liberals violating the constitution, and somehow the left has convinced the country, including most Republicans, that if it violates the constitution for long enough then it somehow magically becomes constitutional.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      sounds about right

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      next up, tearing down the federal reserve and only congress may issue currency

      • 2 months ago
        Sage

        I'm gonna cum

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Curious how this would work with private banks that issue loans into digital bank accounts without actually having the money...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly that.
          >You may not pretend there is money on the books that is not printed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >somehow the left has convinced the country, including most Republicans, that if it violates the constitution for long enough then it somehow magically becomes constitutional.
      Very accurate and concise way to put it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's almost like this whole concept of being ruled by a piece of paper that is interpreted for us by a class of permanent judges was flawed from the start.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >noo the judicial branch can't just stop muh federal government from pushing way past its delegated authority and controlling every aspect of americans' lives
        Sorry chud, but that means its working

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, it was so flawed that it led to us being the largest superpower in the world. Yeah, so flawed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          For about 200 years before turning into the single most hedonistic, degenerate, fattest place on earth yes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Reminder that Jefferson warned about this. Despite a lack of judicial review meaning the legislature could run roughshod over the constitution, he found it preferable that elected officials trampled on it vs unelected judges.

        Still though, the supreme court has been getting a lot of things right lately so I hope they keep undoing all this bullshit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Leftist histrionics: If democrats can't win or control a branch of govt, that branch is illegitimate and must be destroyed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Israel Adesanya looking weird thee days

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Name a better system

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          alicorn monarchy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Monarchy. Duh
            [...]
            >What is your point? That I'm not a reactionary that wants to institute a dictatorship to fix all our problems? That by having any faith in the constitution I'm clearly part of the problem?
            Correct. Go take a nap boomer

            >monarchy
            Unironically?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I trust celestia over our feds any day

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, where do you think you are? Misc is a conservative reactionary board. There are more unironic fascists here than monarchists though.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Monarchy. Duh

          What is your point? That I'm not a reactionary that wants to institute a dictatorship to fix all our problems? That by having any faith in the constitution I'm clearly part of the problem?
          lmfao good luck mate, you're gonna need it.

          >What is your point? That I'm not a reactionary that wants to institute a dictatorship to fix all our problems? That by having any faith in the constitution I'm clearly part of the problem?
          Correct. Go take a nap boomer

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      An actual intellectual on this board. That’s rare.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Allah bless this post

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >if it violates the constitution for long enough then it somehow magically becomes constitutional.
      Incredibly based and truth pilled.
      Fuck israelite, naggers, and democrats... but I repeat myself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that if it violates the constitution for long enough then it somehow magically becomes constitutional.

      That's basically the soviet union and any leftist regime in History

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You forgot post 1871 USA, Canada, Germany. The banksters BTFO all 3 countries founding documents in 1871

      • 2 months ago
        Sage

        Don't forget the Roman Republic. If the constitution isn't followed then you don't have a constitution. If you don't have a constitution, you're governed by the will of whoever currently has power.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Great post

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is what we get when my fellow burgertards lived comfy and didn't learn history. This was all addressed largely with the civil war and of course initially to fend off England. Don't like the U.S. government as an entity? Good fucking luck when China picks off the country state by corrupt state.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nailed it.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I need the civil war prediction pasta if any anon is kind enough to share.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      civil war was "baked into" our founding. there is no reversal. it's an ancient theme--small power managing local issues vs. large powers trying to take control over all entities while seized by sociopaths who seek to control the world.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >civil war was "baked into" our founding.
        This. It fascinates me to no end that people cannot see how incompetent the founders and our constitution were.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How is that incompetent?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This. It fascinates me to no end that people cannot see how incompetent the founders and our constitution were.
          Your mistake is in assuming that they also did not predict this conflict. The whole point of the constitution is to give the good guys the chance to win

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your mistake is in assuming that they also did not predict this conflict.
            LMAO. Muh omnipotent founding fathers!
            The constitution is a worthless piece of paper that has lulled people into a false sense of security.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >LMAO. Muh omnipotent founding fathers!
              You said they're incompetent for not predicting it, but they must be omnipotent to have predicted it?
              No you are just a seething homo.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are literally retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are too low IQ to make a compelling argument for anything, it's probably because you are taking the estrogen pills

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                2017 called and wants it's homosexual back

                newfag says what?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Muh omnipotent founding fathers!
              Normie homosexuals who still live in their parents basements think their smarter than the Founders

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Normie homosexuals who still live in their parents basements
                >Worshipping the founders is literally normie conservativism 101
                >think their smarter than the Founders
                Yes, 100%. The founders are the midwits of history

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes, 100%. The founders are the midwits of history
                You forgot to call me a newfag, 20pbtid

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are a newfag. Thanks for reminding me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You are a newfag.
                kek

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are a newfag, correct.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I have this one

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Saved.
        But not the one I'm looking for. This anon predicted it would basically be state vs feds police vs government. I've seen it quite a bit over the last couple of weeks.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ideally, the power would be more up to the people, as it should be. Pay attention to this decision. This is the one they are using Roe v Wade to distract from.

    • 2 months ago
      King Shitlord

      Thats a dumb idea

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it’s the only way to save the US from racial strife. The government fucked up in the 1960s by forcing everyone to live together just because a few jobless naggers walked around a city, and it’s Al been downhill from there.

        • 2 months ago
          King Shitlord

          Its a horrible idea
          The people have their representation in the House
          mob rule is fucking retarded

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, rule by a disinterested, sheltered, invisible cabal is so much better.

            • 2 months ago
              King Shitlord

              KYS commie

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Take some meds, homosexual.
      >that other major decision was just a distraction!
      Full retard. Why the fuck would SCOTUS need to “distract”? To prevent super-SCOTUS from overruling them?
      Or do you think they’d be assaulted by agencies like in a Bourne movie?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To quell popular support for more freedom by omitting discussion of such things. Throw the hot button abortion into chaos and pray the chaos is enough that the wiser of the Plebians doesn't notice the reduction in power of the Federal Government. Blind the people to their own rightful power and they will be obedient slaves forever.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government is unconstitutional
    CITY OF LONDON BTFO

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      qrd on this? I think you posted briefly about it yesterday.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The City of London is who fomented the US Civil War. This plan was set in motion as soon as Jackson destroyed the second bank of the united states. They attacked the Virginia statehouse in the opening salvo of the War of 1812 to prevent Virginia from being the final ratifying signature on the original 13th amendment that would have prevented The City's agents from infiltrating our system of law and writing all the corporate law into the books from 1812-1865. Oddly enough, this original 13th amendment was passed again in 1819, yet somehow it was still removed. This shows you how crucial the infiltration of the law was to The City. Thusly once they were able to make the civil war happen, they strongarmed weak men into accepting the corporate bylaws of 1871 as the supreme document to supersede The Constitution For These United States of America. You may have heard of these bylaws for the Corporations of the United States, they are named The Constitution of the United States.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          thanks

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where can i read more about this?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            http://www.amendment-13.org/
            On March 12, 1819 the State of Virginia, with the enactment and publication of the laws of Virginia, became the 13th and FINAL state required to ratify the above article of amendment to the Constitution For The United States, thus making it the Law Of The Land. With the enactment of Act No. 280, March 12, 1819, which was Voted, En Bloc, and publication of the Revised Code, the State of Virginia notified the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress, and the President of their action by issuing to each a copy of the Laws of Virginia. [See VA 1819 Images] . In fact, the Journal of the Virginia Senate; Tuesday, May 1st, 1810 (Pages 511-512 shows that the resolution to amend was properly enrolled and ratified on that date by the Virginia House and Senate, to be laid before the President of the United States, therefore the first state to ratify.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where can i read more about this?

          >Where can i read more about this?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ty anon. I fucking hate the banking naggers

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Whoa! No time to read, break time

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They attacked the Virginia statehouse in the opening salvo of the War of 1812 t
          the agreement signed at the end made US citizens property

          >this original 13th amendment
          barring elected officials from holding foreign title?

          all that 1971 garbage is easily dealt with, get rid of the bretton woods agreement, remove the district of columbia organic act and make it so the citizens can sue members of government for the acts they perform in office again

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the agreement signed at the end made US citizens property
            this is 1871 and the corporate bylaws called The Constitution of the United States you're referring to here, not 1812.
            >all that 1971 garbage is easily dealt with
            kek, 1871 is not 1971. and yes, that 1871 garbage is easily dealt with - dissolve the corporate charters of the corporations of the united states and destroy their corporate bylaws, returning to our precious 1787 original, The Constitution For These United States of America.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >dissolve the corporate charters of the corporations of the united states and destroy their corporate bylaws, returning to our precious 1787 original,
              we been pushing for this the entire time, if it looks like we're getting it with these officers better watch the fuck out because you're in real trouble then

              so how do we know such a thing has happened? can you sue your members of government? have all the members of government holding title from foreigners been removed from office?

              of course this will destroy the current welfare system and all the fly over areas that survive off tax handouts from cities will have to restart their local industry

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >restart their local industry
                Go fuck yourself. Rural America was sold out by urban corporations that would rather save a penny than employ their fellow American. It's not their fault people are greedy mother fuckers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah no shit, the people in the city give up half the tax money collected to the police basically they're paying for their own prison guards and the other half is distributed to fly over states for welfare programs to prevent industry from popping up, it's a fucked up slave jail system and I wasn't blaming the people in the fly overs for it

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >returning to our precious 1787 original, The Constitution For These United States of America.
              MUH CONSTITUTION. Constitution fags are literally the worst. The constitution is a judeo-masonic liberal document. Out goal is to role back the judeo-protestant-enlightenment, not return to some enlightenment golden age that never actually existed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck off back to england, you gay homo

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Get the fuck off pol. This is a reactionary board, not a gay liberal constitution larping board.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no we like the REAL constitution here, all things that promote freedom are good and all things that prevent freedom are evil

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no we like the REAL constitution here, all things that promote freedom are good and all things that prevent freedom are evil
                No this is literal lolbert homosexualry. Where are all these newfags coming from?
                >back to pleebit with you, homosexual
                LMAO he thinks pol is a liberal enlightenment board.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                we need here the whole time, its the script they're going with so roll with it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                2017 called and wants it's homosexual back

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you are a fag and belong somewhere in the youtube comment section, not here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you are a fag and belong somewhere in the youtube comment section, not here
                fuck off lolbert, this is a monarchist & fascist board

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yea ok whatever have fun chopping off ur dick

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yea ok whatever have fun chopping off ur dick

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Out goal is to role back the judeo-protestant-enlightenment,
                so you advocate for the mayflower compact?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that never actually existed.
                >I believe all the israelite history rewrites, why dont you?
                learn your history, homosexual. and not "history" that Rockefeller and Carnegie dumped all their money into for globohomo.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                back to pleebit with you, homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon but where should I start

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                read my posts in this thread and the links that have come from it and its responses

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Do you even hear yourself

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cant into stories that dont agree with my rockefeller school textbook
                do you even hear yourself?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >coping so gard at federal abuse of power that you have to fantasize that the government was swapped out with a corporation and if we could only just find the right document to pull then the israelites would finally be BTFO because we're currently just under magic spells of the letter of the law rather than being under the thumb of power-mad tyrans who do not give a shit about the written law in any way

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                these things are historically verifiable, but not if you ask globohomo. so either you're a dipshit or you're too lazy to educate yourself, which is it?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The lore went deeper then I could possibly imagined

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Our second president was a globalist banker, this fight today is the same fight, its the entire history of the US

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              correct

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >CITY OF LONDON BTFO
      they control every single one of those justices, this is the lead in so you start buying their horseshit before they stab you in the back

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        thanks homosexual, Clarnence is totally an operative just to fuck with us, how did I not see this already

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          he might not be, I didn't look into him, but did he protest when Roberts changed the obamacare law by himself with a pencil and ran off to collect himself a knighthood? because if the law worked he could be impeached for that

          the funniest part there is the liberals will never bring it up because they would lose obamacare if they followed the legal path

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            obamacare is unlawful

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              illegally changing the wording of the law by himself with a pencil and personally profiting off the result tip you off to that?

              seated in violation of the foreign emoluments act worry you at all?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >City of London

      This anon gets it.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seeing the ATF get wrecked would be hilarious. This would cause a giant meltdown in Washington. Congressmen would actually be held responsible for the laws they passed instead of faceless bureaucrats.

    • 2 months ago
      Sage

      Jerry Nadler takes marching orders in real time on live TV from unelected maskless spooks standing behind him

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fact check: True

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He also has a tendency to literally shit himself on live TV.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Congressmen would actually be held responsible for the laws they passed instead of faceless bureaucrats.
      This is the hidden subtext
      We live in an era of government defined by Obama, who was elected president in spite of having no track record of any kind
      Governance via the art of doing nothing one can later beheld responsible for has become the norm
      Forcing legislators to have track records again would completely rock the governing class

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The DEA's drug schedule would be wrecked

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The DEA's drug schedule would be wrecked
        a just action if there ever was one, does this also remove necessity of prescription to buy drugs?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on if there is a congressional bill on the books or if that was an administrative regulation....

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on if there is a congressional bill on the books or if that was an administrative regulation....

          I don't think anons are fully grasping the gravity of this decision if they actually do it (and they should). Congress will spend the next decade rewriting and wrangling over all of these laws.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think anons are fully grasping the gravity of this decision if they actually do it (and they should). Congress will spend the next decade rewriting and wrangling over all of these laws.
            anon in a previous thread suggested that the laws would be dismantled slowly over time as they're challenged by lawsuits. then they'd be written.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >anon in a previous thread suggested that the laws would be dismantled slowly over time as they're challenged by lawsuits. then they'd be written.
              That would be a hella lot less chaotic.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the laws would be dismantled slowly over time
              you get rid of the district of columbia organic act, you can sue members of congress, they would likely flee rather than face justice which would be problematic for writing new laws, also in the current state of government you can't even pass any laws not pertaining to emergency

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Congress will spend the next decade rewriting and wrangling over all of these laws.
            Yep, and as dysfunctional as Washington is, I don't see it working. This is unironically HUGE.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >does this also remove necessity of prescription to buy drugs?
          >what is the 10th amendment

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            thank you was curious if that was the strongest argument there

            so state governments are powerless to remove the liberty of making their own medical decisions by illegally imposing a doctor licensure system to access medicine, because sovereign people have liberty to make their own choices and requiring a doctor to sign off removes their agency

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fuck that stupid homosexual. Legislative is supposed to legislate, not execute. There's another branch for that. Just like the executive isn't supposed to legislate by EOs. The whole thing has become an incestuous relationship that goes against everything our government was set up to be. I welcome that shit like yesterday. I hope thomas goes full scorched earth and outlaws lobbying too because it alienates our rights as individuals in favor of corporations. First he might need to strike down corporations being people but he could do it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Man all of that gives me a huge boner, I'd kill to see it happen.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they killed to make it that way in the first place

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >First he might need to strike down corporations being people but he could do it.

      But he voted for citizens United, so why would he oveturn it?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why would he oveturn it?
        orders, they're going to make it look like you winning then they fuck you and make you lose more

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I hope thomas goes full scorched earth and outlaws lobbying too because it alienates our rights as individuals in favor of corporations.
      I prepared the SC is to just go and fully unfuck everything. The kvetching would be enormous, but worth it. Just absolutely overturning the entire playing board and telling all the fags, commies and power hungry sycophants that they are liars and cheats so they have to start over.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thomas actually supports lobbying because it is first amendment shit

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump for important.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How in the fuck is the federal government illegal i have got to be being trolled by the most ironic of cocksuckers if not im just going to assume the govt has been hijacked and the people are being pacified

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it was set up to only be a means of having a national standing army. Every law and decision and action by them in the past 250 years has been illegitimate because people are shitheads that crave power. States should be able to decide individually what they want to be law. At least then, people could select where they live based on the law of that land. Do you think Mississippi wants gay marriage? But they have to accept it because the federal government told them so. The constitution explicitly says any power not explicitly given to the federal government should be left up to the states. The federal government IS illegitimate.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A permanent standing army is prohibited in the Constitution. We're supposed to have a navy and the feds are just supposed to protect/manage interstate and foreign trade and the common defense

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >f not im just going to assume the govt has been hijacked and the people are being pacified
      figure out what happened in 1871, read up on the hijacking

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not that the "federal government is illegal" -- that's hyperbole -- it's that Congress has for more than a century undertaken the practice of delegating their powers to administrative agencies that they create under the pretense that so long as they create those agencies lawfully and check in from time to time with what they're doing that it's all constitutional. But this expressly the reason the powers were divided in the first place, to prevent the executive branch from having legislative powers, further removing the people's ability to temper them through congressional elections. After all, if you "kick the bums out" in an election, what remains are the powers they delegated to the executive branch before you kicked them out. And so now you are an extra step removed from getting rid of the problems that might have influenced your vote to begin with.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      One of the most glaring examples is how the ATF arbitrarily makes declarations about firearm legality without input from Congress. New designs appear that aren't specified in law, the ATF assumes authority it doesn't have to declare it illegal.

      All of this stems from Congress being corrupt idiots that lack they actual capacity for informed consent.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      oh look a retard from ths ministry of disinfo is here

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How in the fuck is the federal government illegal
      Well, first we need to educate you on the difference between legal and lawful, per Black's Law Dictionary. In a nutshell, "legal" is anything they put into a legal code. But in order for it to be lawful, it has to also be constitutionally consistent. So the end result is, the fedgov is not illegal, but it does a lot of things (most of its actions, realistically) that are unlawful.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is entirely correct, and therefore will be disregarded and you will be called a homosexual.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Somebody tell me does this have the ability to destroy the fed?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry, bro, the fed isn't a governmental body. It only acts like one and deceives people into believing it is.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        and is thusly an unlawful delegation, to be struck down similarly to the others

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Sorry, bro, the fed isn't a governmental body. It only acts like one and deceives people into believing it is.
        It must be vested with governmental authority though to be able to print US currency... so it sounds like a similar situation.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it sounds like a similar situation.
          it's the exact same situation but if you get rid of the fed you still have slavery

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No more than lockheed martin is a governmental body. It's really baffling that we have a mint and bureau of engraving and printing, yet we still rely on a private corporation for our money. It's almost like it's a huge racket to take money from the lower classes and give it to the upper crust. Our country has been treated like a whore for the past 100 years and it pisses me off cause we could have the greatest shit if homosexuals weren't stealing all our money.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            fucking quality post.
            be proud, anon.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          LITERALLY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRINT MONEY
          >Just fucking makes up numbers on the books anyway

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the US Mint RETARD

            I think this must be some kind of israelite pilpul. Obviously when we talk about printing money, we're talking about the creation of US currency, not the literal act of printing the dollar. If you can fabricate numbers on the books that IS a creation of currency and IS, in effect, printing money since money is digital these days and doesn't necessarily require any physically printed dollar as such.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's my point exactly. They should not be able to cook the books.
              The Federal Reserve has also dropped, abolished, gotten rid of their founding purpose. They no longer insure the common citizen's bank accounts up to any amount.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That’s the US Mint RETARD

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you stupid? the federal reserve is not the us mint. the federal reserve is a private entity and needs to be dissolved immediately.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The US mint and the federal reserve are 2 separate entities. The Federal Reserve is an illegal israeli racketeering operation that Woodrow Wilson gave complete control of our money to in 1913. Its a private NON governmental agency that creates money out of thin air and loans it to the government at interest. Its corrupt, unconstitutional, and has resulted in the USD losing 99% of ots purchasing power since then. The ONLY form of money specified in the Constitution is silver. These fake ass israeli IOUs we use today aren't backed by anything and aren't even legal money technically. Jesus some of you went to public schools and it shows.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No idea, but it would take away the ATF, EPA, and the rest's ability to "make" laws. They never should of had this power to begin with, but it has been around so long that tossing it out would be a gigantic earthquake hitting Washington. We can hope!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, congress has that power. Too bad the snakes gave away their power to the private central bank (Federal Reserve,) in 1913.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    private vs public
    de jure vs de facto
    constitutional vs statutory
    etc
    be a good jurist anon

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good. I hate the federal government so fucking much it's unreal.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The members of Congress will have far less free time on their hands.
    Your choice of staff will be a big deal. You want nerds that obsess over apostrophe's. The various comitees that seem to serve no purpose anymore will become huge if you have clever people working for you.

    Everybody in DC will hate it. Everybody outside of DC should love it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You want nerds that obsess over apostrophe's
      Looks like you could use one yourself.

  14. 2 months ago
    Sage

    Better start your push-ups a day pullups today cus I can assure you despite all their kit, the glow naggers are not exercising

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government is unconstitutional
    it will remove from members of congress protections from being sued over their actions in office

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Posting in relevant thread.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's your fault the US exists

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And it's your parents fault that you're a nagger.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would be a lovely ruling although I’m sure the federal government would do whatever it could to challenge, resist, or outright ignore it
    The outcome would basically end up as a major court ruling in history books a hundred years from now (if we’re not extinct) and it’s implications are either the agencies are dissolved or the SCOTUS is

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it’s implications are either the agencies are dissolved or the SCOTUS is

      Guess which one ((they)) will make happen.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        jobless agents with nobody to arrest them sounds more fun and chaotic, and let's be honest, they all sell drugs so they don't need the paycheck

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    B-but the Patriot Act is a GOOD thing! It keeps us safe! Besides who wants to read your emails anyway LOL u loser. We NEED Congress to delegate this kind of power! What are you, some kind of terrorist? Why don’t you trust your political royalty to delegate power to unelected people who offer no transparency? You must be a BAD PERSON. I’m calling the FBI!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the Patriot Act is a GOOD thing!
      totally illegal, don't tell me you fell for that

      nobody at the FBI building any time I go over there the door is locked and the building is empty

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >missed the sarcasm
        It’s okay, fren. I’m on the spectrum, too.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          no I got it but there is a big computer that reads all the stuff and they use it to design their next headlines and I'm trying to manipulate that algorithm

    • 2 months ago
      Sage

      If the FBI is spying on me they will legit be too fucking scared to show up at my door. They know I know they know I know

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If the FBI is spying on me
        they probably can't get clearance to spy on you

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was leaked at some point that basically they can get a special warrant without any judge. They just need one other FBI agent to sign off.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they can get a special warrant without any judge
            the FISA court has never turned down an application

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Lies. They only approve like 99% of them. The fact that the chief justice of the united states is involved in a secret court with secret proceedings and doesn't find anything wrong with it is yet another reason why roberts should hang.
              >sauce: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They only approve like 99% of them
                oh so they turned down 5 or 10 since I last checked in 1996?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, but they've vastly expanded the use of FISA warrants at the same time (shocker: people abuse power)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that whole thing was a disgrace, same as 1947 national security act, same as CALEA, same as Clinton trying to remove status of the 1972 privacy act or "the AI bill"

        • 2 months ago
          King Shitlord

          >they probably can't get clearance to spy on you
          >t. summer child

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You are very naïve lol

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a great thread, but who keeps posting it over and over again?
    It has to be the third or possibly fourth time that this screenshot has been used within the last 24 hours.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stop, I can only get so erect.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This would also result in how many millions of unemployed Federal workers? Would be absolutely fucking beautiful.
    Fuck TSA agents.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I would probably lose my job since I work directly with the FDA. I also don’t give a fuck because I’ll get another job and this is way more important than little old me.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Each state should have its own regulatory agency version of the FDA that conforms to agreed upon basic standards. You could have groups of states that vote on and form guidelines and have an overseeing body made up of elected people from the participating states.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GOD DAMN I'M SO HARD RIGHT NOW QUIT TEASING

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Clarence getting all his bruthas out of jail for free

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It means that the House and the Senate would have to get back to legislating, instead of grand-standing on the steps and posting TikTok videos.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fed government is corrupt as fuck because none of its departments adhere to Constitutional law.

    This is why the CIA, FBI, IRS, etc., have all become incompetent & overreaching. The people running the government, the bureaucrats and the politicians all believe their federal institutions are above the Constitution.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spoiler alert: most of the government is unconstitutional.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the swamp that Trump went to drain.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And if they vote properly, he will have achieved it against all odds

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It would be glorious.
        MAGA.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      With an army of israelites…..

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They're absolutely right. The federal government has zero authority or constitutional right to create federal agencies and give them sweeping power, including the right to make laws and statutes that supercede state law. This unchecked federal abuse of power had been happening since the 80s and its time that we start reigning it in. Federalism is making a comeback. Fuck the fed, states rights.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think you mean anti-federalism. Otherwise, I agree completely. We need another anti-federalist political party. The gop was supposed to be like this but they only want to line their own pockets too. We need to make it impossible for them to get rich off the american public. Politicians should be treated like dirt and considered below even the lowest of welfare nagger. Maybe then we'd get politicians that do it out of civic duty and not personal gain.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I think you mean anti-federalism.
        correct, Federalists are agents of the city of london. when being a federalist became a bad word that nobody wanted to be associated with, that's when they invented the word Progressive. once being a progressive was a dirty word that nobody wanted to be associated with, they started calling themselves Liberals, of all things, Progressivism being the polar opposite of Classical Liberalism.
        Fast forward a bit to people hating liberals to the point where Hillary Clinton has to take the mask off and say she's not a liberal, she's a progressive.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No its literally called federalism, i know its confusing but look it up. Federalism in the US as it was originally penned in the federalist papers refers to a weak central government with states controlling most of the day to day. We spent an entire week on this in US history class, what zog public school victimized you so bad that don't even understand the basic tenants of our founding? Read the federalist papers.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, actually, I think you're retarded. The federalists were the ones wanting to ratify the constitution. The anti-federalists were those opposed to it because they believed it endowed the federal government with too much power. Seriously, read a book of you think the federalist papers were anti big government.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >federalism
          Literally israeli, even if they supported tariffs.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm no political scholar or anything. but if the federal government didn't exist, wouldn't that just make each state able to decide it's own laws?

    that seems like a good thing to me. if someone is religious and anti abortion, then they move to a state that reflects those values and enforce those laws. and liberal stoners can congregate to the states with legalized weed. whores can all live in the abortion states, and so on.

    i feel like that would give us more freedom and more choices of what rules to live under. if you don't like your state laws, then you have 49 other states to choose from that reflect your values or belief system.

    i feel like that gives us more freedom. am i wrong? if federal law is abolished, in what ways can it make our country or more unsafe? i don't get it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's literally how the country was set up. The ONLY powers enumerated to the federal government are national defense of our boarders, regulating interstate commerce, and managing our money. EVERYTHING else is left to the states. We have let israelite completely subvert our Republic and now we have a bloated, incompetent, corrupt cabal in DC that issues law from its ivory tower and uses violence against anyone who doesn't comply. Read the federalist papers and learn about what the USA is supposed to be. 50 independent states with a weak federal government, not 50 vassals at the mercy of geriatric israelite in DC.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Testimony against Justice Thomas's nomination in the 90s in rather interesting. They were really pulling out all the stops.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5021992/user-clip-christopher-edley-jr-chris-lawrence-testimony

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government is unconstitutional
    Finally some real happenings.
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The political implications are

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based oldfag poster

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Timothy McVeigh was a constitutional hero on the order of Simon de Montfort

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >if the supreme court does it's job then we're all doomed
    is what I expect a doomed nation to say

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Repeal Marbury Vs. Madison
    Repeal Chevron Vs. NRDC
    Repeal Wickard Vs. Filburn
    Etc.

    I could probably spend hours listing good ones to target

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Repeal Marbury Vs. Madison
      So literally repeal the entire history of US jurisprudence. If your position is that we need to repeal a foundational court case that has defined the country for 98% of its existence, at what point do you just admit that the whole gay experiment was a mistake?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >at what point do you just admit that the whole gay experiment was a mistake?
        never, we like argument so long as it never gets anywhere, it was perfect when it was created, any action has to slightly change it only so it can immediately be slightly changed back

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >never, we like argument so long as it never gets anywhere, it was perfect when it was created,
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You literally worship your gay masonic constitution as a false idol. It was never perfect, it never worked, and freedom is gay

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, basically. Marbury v Madison was a terrible power grab by the judiciary and places them supreme above both other branches. Instead of elected representatives taking away our rights instead we have unelected judges doing it. But they're "unbiased" "experts" so somehow it makes it better. See also, Worcester v. Georgia for how seriously the supremacy of the courts was treated early on.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If it is odious to the Constitution, it is automatically null and void
          how is demanding consistency with the constitution a power grab, brainlet?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because they appointed themselves the arbiters of the constitution. Where is that written? What law gave them such power? None, John Marshall made it up out of thin air as a power grab so his position as chief justice would become more powerful.
            >If it is odious to the Constitution, it is automatically null and void
            Explain the following:
            FISA (secret courts, secret gags on free speech, secret spying, etc.)
            PATRIOT Act
            NSA spying on literally everyone
            100 mile "constitution free zone"
            Any federal law against gun ownership
            Commerce clause being used to trample the 10th amendment

            Clearly the courts have been doing an excellent job.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Because they appointed themselves the arbiters of the constitution.
              They did no such thing you colossal homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Really, what law appointed them as such then?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what defined the 3 branches of government? is this that hard of a question for you to understand? SCOTUS did not define itself, mongo.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice proof. Guess you couldn't find it then? You know, that document where SCOTUS is defined and then it goes on to say they get to overrule the legislature. Oh right, that part doesn't exist. Totally made up out of thin air by the courts themselves (conflict of interest much?)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                SCOTUS is specifically designed as a check on the legislature, dipshit. they were purposefully given the power to tell the legislature what they wrote is fucked up and is not consistent with the constitution. that's literally what scotus was created for, are you goddamned fucking retarded? the fucking constitution itself was what created and defined these things. go fuckin educate yourself on simple matters before you open your stupid ass mouth on shit you are completely ignorant of.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Really? And where is judicial review mentioned here? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                go be a homosexual somewhere else, you're not convincing in the least

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice argument. I accept your defeat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          So the magical constitution doesn't have any means for dealing with a disastrously bad court decision that completely destroyed the way the government was supposed to work, almost from day 1? How is this better than just having a king who makes decisions? Sounds like it's way worse.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think it’s pretty clear that it was a mistake. Look around you. We dropped the ball.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And why can't the constitution-god correct this mistake? Is it because you can't contain power with a rules based system?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well I guess the story isn’t over. This would restore my faith in our system of government. But as of now we’ve taken everything that was done to try to maintain our freedom and made every effort to erode it by granting more and more unconstitutional authority to the federal government

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Repeal Marbury Vs. Madison
      this is how you know a stupid homosexual with no clue about anything he's speaking of is talking

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this post
        Small brained.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if it is oduous to the constitution it is automatically null and void
          imagine actually having a problem with this

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn’t it the executive branch’s responsibility to enforce the laws? Congress legislates the laws. Courts interpret the laws. Executive branch executes the laws.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    controlled substance act of 1970 next gogogogo

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      citizen united seems more important, also taking out district of columbia organic act would do many of these at the same time

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are you in high school?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          why do you ask??

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The biggest problem with the federal government is that congress and the president have outsourced most of their responsibilities.

    I would be happy for these fuckers to have more to do so they’re not fucking around with us by passing new laws all the time.

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ever notice how often leftists confuse "draconian manner" with "working exactly as intended"?
    "Draconian" is right up there with "fascism" on the 'terms leftists can't define but know they hate' list.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >leftists can't define but know they hate' list.
      Deprogramming NPCs is a difficult task, they embrace the double speak.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Deprogramming NPCs is a difficult task
        I recommend 230 grains of lead delivered to the glabella at around 900 fps.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          pretty well limiting self to 45 acp

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They want to delegate to regulatory bodies fully captured by the very megacorps they were ostensibly intended to regulate, because that's how it was designed. The EPA exists so Congress doesn't impose on Dupont, FDA for Pfizer, FCC for ATT, etc. They weren't designed to protect YOU, peasant.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      we noticed when the FDA was full of Dupont lawyers

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And as Dupont's patent on Freon was about to expire they started the ozone hole-o-hoax.
        >Quick everyone switch to our new ozone friendly magic gas

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also, this lets them shift blame and defer to so-called experts for unpopular decisions.
      >why yes, I think it's a great idea having Goldman Sachs regulating themselves at the SEC
      a few moments later
      >we have to bail out our banks because they lost money gambling on real estate, but only the ones in our club.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Constitution larpers, enlightenment fags, and lolberts are absolutely seething in this thread. You are all literally newfags who showed up last month. You are not reactionaries, you are not part of the dissident right.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We're all seething about getting exactly what we want from the SCOTUS

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        its fkn hilarious how far they will bend and contort themselves

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Could you miss the point any harder?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I corrected the point

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What is your point? That I'm not a reactionary that wants to institute a dictatorship to fix all our problems? That by having any faith in the constitution I'm clearly part of the problem?
          lmfao good luck mate, you're gonna need it.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >federal government unconstitutional
    The powers are delegated to the states or the people. So the federal government cannot make laws for the states to abide because they don't have that power. Again,
    >the powers delegated to the states or the people
    Means for the federal government to fuck off.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This ruling would drastically alter how the country is run overnight. Nearly the entirety of the Code of Federal Regulations would be rendered null and void. Think about it... administrative law governs TONS of daily activities

    FCC for radio broadcasts
    EPA for vehicle emissions
    FAA for air traffic
    etc etc you get the picture

    How we do business would be totally upended overnight, and congress could never fix it because they are 100 years behind.

    My guess (and im not a laywer) is that congress would have to call an emergency session to pass a new law codifying everything in the current CFR as law. IDK if they could do that, but it would basically lock in everything as it is now into law and any future changes would have to go thru congress.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >FCC for radio broadcasts
      I can throw my stacked moonrakers as high as I want?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no rules, baby! brb while i buzz the tower at LAX in my cessna. they won't be able to hear me on the radio anyway, because some homosexual will be broadcasting joe rogans podcast on the tower frequency

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          my class d license is now worthless paper, and thats a good thing

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >My guess (and im not a laywer) is that congress would have to call an emergency session to pass a new law codifying everything in the current CFR as law.
      if conservatards allow this to happen without negotiating absolutely everything then they truly are unredeemable and deserve the rope

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Those rules are incredibly partisan. This is what all the fuss is about with presidents issuing executive orders.
        There is absolutely no way they could get anything near current policy though.
        And better yet, whatever they did finally compromise on wouldn't change drastically every time a new president gets in office.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >with presidents issuing executive orders.
          this started happening a lot with Lincoln, a whole lot of bullshit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lincoln shit all over the constitution

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You do realize that these unconstitutional agencies aren't fostering business: it's impeding it. The moment these agencies go away the sooner Americans will realize how useless they always were. The free market will find immediate and efficient solutions to any issues which may arise.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not a chemist or physicist but I've been wondering how much stuff along the lines of picrel could be out there that would render whole bodies of regulations moot.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          thats the patent office, you have to rescue the patent office from SERCO

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there can be no light without darkness
            >there can be no shadow without light

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can't validate post, but the way bureaucracies work is to create difficulties that only they can solve. That circular logic is how they create the illusion of providing value.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think you're (mostly) right, but it would cripple us in the short term.

        for example, the FAA regulates everything about air travel, from medical rquirements, licensure, and the "traffic rules" of the sky. All of that goes out the window overnight. All commercial travel would have to shut down until congress can pass the necessary laws, since there is no safe way to travel (sky becomes the wild west, anyone can fly anything, anywhere).

        and that's one industry, imagine all the other industries that are regulated this way. it would cause major problems across the country. this isnt like ripping off the band aid, its tearing out the stitches.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I hear ya, but it is better to just rip the bandaid than to create another bureaucracy (on top of the existing one) to manage and oversee the transition of power back to the States and the People.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What transition of power? It would be instant.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >It would be instant.
              If we rip the bandaid and just let the market figure it out, then yes: it would be instant.

              But keep in mind that we're talking about laying off millions of govt parasites off the taxpayer's tit. The govt will push for a more nuanced, slow approach. This is where they will create a new transitory bureaucracy to oversee the disbursement of power, slowly dismantling most of the federal govt. So if we go this route, then yes: I predict we'll be stuck more bureaucracy as the transitory one will continue moving the goalposts and never enforce the non-delegation

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Keep in mind also while people are VERY stupid most would carry on as they have been before the ruling. Things would change but I suppose it goes either way. The whole country is in shock and people lose their minds or waves are barely felt and we live like we have been? Idk guess we’ll see.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you really think the few airlines wouldn't continue to operate as they do currently? There's no law saying you can't form your own standards bodies as companies and follow those guidelines. They'd continue as-is for the interim and then either create their own version of FAA guidelines or the congress would pass laws re-implementing it.

          Hell, we might even get pop-up headlights back on cars if this happens. Isn't that worth it?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because the sky is so small and planes so big that without the FAA aircraft would just be plummeting out of the fucking sky all day every day, crashing left and right, total catastrophe.
          For fucks sake, can you imagine all the little private crop dusters not having to pay the feds for the privelege of a 200 ft high flight?
          Fuck me, we cant live without feds regulating. It would ve disaster

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            im more worried about planes with 200 passengers getting cut off on final by bobby boondock in his 500 year old piper cub with no transponder busting the class b airspace so he can show off for his buddy.

            nobody gives a fuck about crop dusters in bumfuck nowhere, the regulations protect aircraft in high traffic areas and during ifr operations with limited visibility

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >reining in the FAA means we get rid of ATCs at airports
              what the fuck is wrong with your logic circuit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if there are no regs requiring the piper to have a radio, how exactly can they communicate with ATC?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No one would fly if that was the case

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Think of the medical industry.
          Why, without federal oversight doctors would be free to select effective medications rather than relying on mass media for nocebo illnesses to proliferate before selling narcotics acquired through military occupation to fund black ops to further research new and sinister nocebo methodologies.
          Imagine the horror if doctors maintained the Oath rather than allegiance to federal beauracracy.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          why do people think all regulations and agencies will up and disappear, that's not how thing is going to play out. this post is dumb to even consider.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          why do people think all regulations and agencies will up and disappear, that's not how thing is going to play out. this post is dumb to even consider.

          Because there's a few ways it could play out. IMO something like they continue to operate under former rules for a year or so until a new baseline is agreed on.
          The overreach of these organizations will have to be publicly acknowledged in congress. Those assholes will have to WORK for a change.
          And they will agree on some dumb shit, they'll get compromised by money, but it'll be way better and slower.
          Congress relies on their vague laws to survive. Making them do their job has a chance of revealing the curtain even more.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >congress would have to call an emergency session to pass a new law codifying everything in the current CFR as law.
      That is clever. It gets them off the hook for the moment.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Actual Americans now disregard the Supreme Court. It's a dead institution. Carry on with your abortion freedom.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a dead institution
      it's true but so is the legality of obamacare

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ATF is a worthless organization.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based snow chink

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The israelite fears the self sufficient man and his dog companion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're supposed to force the other federal agencies to comply with military regulation regarding storage of munitions

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based lifestyle.

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This was literally what the founding fathers intended. Power to the states

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    isn't that the swamp? it's not getting drained but will have no power

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      so Q-tards were right all along? two more weeks?

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This would be great in a lot of ways but extremely problematic in others. I don’t think people are grasping the gravity of this were it to actually happen

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The implications are that it will promote a better and less contentious form of democracy in the US as governmental decisions will be made mostly in the states legislatures and local governments and therefore, better represent the governed demos.
    The federal government was never meant to be anything more than an interstate referee and an outwardly facing international representative of those states.
    We could improve matters signifigantly by repealing the 12th through the 19th amendments to the constitution and returning our nation to it's intended structure.

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is the big one, Trump's legacy restored if it happens

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Males who want women to have rights and political power are evolutionary failures.

    Any race or society that gives women rights have doomed themselves to be invaded and have a death spiraling birth rate.

    They're much bigger failures/aberrations than even the ugliest incel.

    Any sane society executes men who push for women's rights.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based. Women having power can only ever hurt society as a whole, so we can deduce that the only men who would ever advocate for it are low status males who want to use it to gain power for themselves. These men must be ruthlessly dispatched. They are genetically parasitic on the rest of us

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The crazy thing is, giving women power hurts low status males the most.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It hurts everyone beyond an acceptable threshold so pointing that out was a meaningless distinction only intended to rile up a particular audience. What’s your endgame?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            To convince low status males that simping for women won't ever get them to notice you, it just makes the situation worse. A lot of guys don't know what a shit test is or understand that a lot of the time when they think they're being nice they're just failing the basics of being a man and making the situation worse.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That israeliteing should have never happened to begin with, and should terminate all the unconstitutional federal departments, laws, amendments, but that happening is unbelievable.

  54. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of convenient suicides I'd guess

  55. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the deal of the US suddently digging up old legal precedents?
    What the fuck are you burgers trying to do this time

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Crashing this plane

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        RESTORING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

        You fuckers are going to get patriot act'd again aren't ya?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Plz don’t I just wanna have good things happen here for once

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The dems are going to throw a shitfit. Depending on the ruling, the next few months are going to be maybe the worst ever. But things are looking up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's the joke. All that shit the patriot act was vague about, all that power they delegated?
          MEANS NOTHING
          NULL AND VOID
          No more administrative state or extra judicial trials.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This would make the CIA illegal. Its a beautiful dream and would be the essential step to reclaiming our country.
          But realistically, they would nuke DC and blame russia before they let this happen

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is acceptable

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      RESTORING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Warren court radically shifted court decisions in the 1960s in a liberal direction. The current conservative court is starting to undo a lot of that. IMO, a lot of what the Warren court did was pass laws under the guise of court decisions based on where they thought the winds were blowing and what people wanted (free sex, race mixing, no religion, more government intervention).

  56. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's hoping the ATF gets anally raped and put on trial as the criminals they are.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Gods plan

  57. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Non-delegation clause has always been an issue and nowhere in the constitution does it prop up handing over authority to alphabet soup agencies to avoid doing their fucking job. Get rid of the agencies and congress wouldn’t get to be elected to only focus on the same handful of issues each year, god forbid they do that

  58. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    save for future use because history books have been, are, and will always be perverted

  59. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Congress: “this means we have to pass LAWS to continue gov activities? My constituents aren’t going to support any of this….”

Your email address will not be published.