Previous Post
Next Post


Trump Mandate

America has a new President. Donald J. Trump has yet to be inaugurated and Americans are already winning. Great jobs, great nominees, strong markets and other good news have rained down on us after a long drought of Jimmy Carter-like malaise. America’s mandate for Trump is well-founded.

Of course, the Left’s radicals are melting down. As are a few establishment Republicans. They find fault in nearly every move Trump’s made. They’ve driven America into the ditch for nearly three decades with their “expertise” and now they think we should value their insight?

Democrats have the fewest seats in the U.S. House in generations – since 1938 to be exact. In the Senate, the Republicans have a narrow majority, but the Democrats under Harry Reid abandoned precedent and greatly diminished the minority party’s power. Now that the Republicans are in the majority Democrats have few tools with which to hinder the Trump juggernaut and its mandate to “Make America Great Again”.

Which brings us to guns. President-Elect Trump has formed a Second Amendment Coalition and expressed full-throated support for gun rights. He’s one of us. It’s time for us to to seize the moment.

You may have heard the expression “battered conservative syndrome“. It’s time to get over it. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Yet few on the left seem to have gotten the message from November’s election results. Radicals like Illinois State Senator Don Harmon want us to “compromise” with him to restrict gun rights.

Illinois State Senator Don Harmon and a happy-looking bunch of gun control advocates including Gabby Giffords (second from left).

Senator, we can compromise on the length of mandated minimum sentences for violent armed criminals. But compromise on fundamental Constitutional rights? With all due respect, go to hell, sirPeople died to defend our God-given rights. We’re not going to trade them away for your empty pledge of security as part of yet another gun control scheme doomed to failure.

National reciprocity is just a starting point. We also need to press for national constitutional carry and see where we go. Take suppressors out of the National Firearms Act? Why not take everything else out as well? At the same time, let’s pack the Supreme Court with Scalia-like justices who recognize and appreciate the original intent in the Second Amendment – and the rest of the founding document.

Our opponents are going to screech their shrill, Chicken Little sky-is-falling caterwauls no matter what we do. We’re dealing with zealots, people like Tricia Bishop who wrote in The Baltimore Sun, “I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore than I am by those permitted gun owners.” Well, honey, clearly you aren’t thinking about any of this rationally.

She also wrote:

I don’t know that we owe President-elect Donald Trump an “open mind,” as Hillary Clinton suggested in her speech to supporters Wednesday. He’s shown himself to be a thin-skinned, tax-dodging, deal-reneging, racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic bully with very little self control…

Bless her heart. Ms. Bishop spouts lefty all the talking points with the best of them. But if you asked for substance to back up her allegations that the new President is a tax-dodging racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic xenophobe, she would no doubt just get red-faced angry, sputter and stutter more gibberish.

There’s a reason snowflakes need “safe spaces,” places stocked with crayons, therapy dogs and Play-Doh. The only position she supports when it comes to guns is a path to confiscation. She relies on ad hominem attacks against our position and those who promote it as she can’t argue her side with any real facts or logic.

Why should we moderate our approach in deference to radical extremists like the Tricia Bishop and Don Harmons of the world? It’s time we quit acting like battered wives and stand up for ourselves. The means to our empowerment are in our hands. Let’s aim for the stars in terms of freedom and maybe settle for reaching the moon. For now, at least.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Agree 100% The Dems haven’t listened to anyone but themselves on all the biggest issues for the last 8 years. Time for some of their own medicine. Repeal the NFA, force national reciprocity down everyone’s throat. Its gonna be the obamacare of guns.

      • “Luckily, destroying registries is easier than creating them.”

        Are you on drugs? Once a government creates a list, it *never* dies.

        Lists are immortal once they are on something like flash drive or a system ‘backup’ somewhere…

    • You do realize that if you keep strengthening the federal government, the next time Dems are in power, it’ll be far worse for you guys than Obamacare?

      And there will be a next time. Or do you believe that Trump is forever?

      • “And there will be a next time.”


        However, not doing something as a means of preventing the other side from doing the same is not a recipe for success, either. Once upon a time, there was a sort of MAD environment, where neither side “went too far”. But when Obama took office, it wasn’t long before it became evident the Demoncrats were sounding and acting like they expected to be in power forever. They had no regard for a time when Repubs would rule, and tactics would be returned in kind. MAD ended with Obama. This is not your father’s political landscape; it is open war. In the end, there can be only one (which is the Demoncrat goal).

        • Who said anything about doing nothing?

          What you can do is minimize the federal government. Entrench a precedent that it’s all about the states. Scale down gun laws, yes – but also drug laws, and basically everything else. You have the power to do so – both houses of Congress and the president. Restoring all that would require the same arrangement; and it would still be harder, because passing laws is generally more unpopular than repealing them. Seal the deal with some genuine constitutionalists on SCOTUS, and bingo.

          Instead, we get Jeff Sessions as the AG, which means that War on Drugs is going to go into high gear now. And you guys are seriously talking not about repealing federal gun control legislation, but creating more of it (like national reciprocity). That thing alone is poison – if it sticks, it will firmly entrench the notion that gun control is legitimately under purview of the federal government. After all, if NRA and all the “gun nuts” signed off on it, who could possibly be holding a different vie?

          And really, are you saying that this began with Obama? Plenty of Bush stuff went “too far” (starting with PATRIOT Act). But really we could as well unwind all the way to Nixon and WoD – passing laws that required a constitutional amendment only 50 years before, like it was nothing special. And then, if you think about it, unwind even more, to FDR and the Filburn decision.

          • “Entrench a precedent that it’s all about the states.”

            Already exists: 10A
            What does/did that get us? Legislation will get us more freedom than a constitutional provision? States are effectively mere provinces of the central government. A constitutional amendment stating, “We really mean it”?

            The original my reply was based on what appeared to be you cautioning that taking advantage of our majority because when the Demoncrats are back in power, they will return the favor. I was pointing out that any reluctance on our part will do nothing to prevent the enemy from doing what we eschew.

            I agree that legislation extending reciprocity across the nation is only more gun regulation, alterable at congressional whim. The “full faith and credit” only seems to apply whenever governments see advantage to government. For that reason, I agree with you that national reciprocity should not be supported by pro-gun people. But not pursuing reciprocity because the other side might return the favor is not a useful strategy.

            • You’d be surprised about what could be done right now, actually. A lot of people on the left have just got a very rude wake-up call with respect to what a strong federal government really means. The time is ripe to preach 10A – indeed, many are already discovering that whole states’ rights thing all by themselves. But, you can only convincingly preach it if you follow what you preach.

              • Given the stall in congress (they all like things the way they are), the time required to organize another constitutional amendment (which will be gutted by the courts), get it published through congress, ratified by the states in 24 months would require more changes in political life than is really possible. In this country, we always make the mistake that we are politically structured like England – labor (liberal) and conservatives. Our political labels are just about meaningless. But we persist in believing Republican = Conservative/psuedo-libertarian, Demoncrat = Left. Had the opportunity to explain party labels to a couple of Brits, over dinner. They remained silent while I elaborated. When finished, they both looked at me closely, and one asked, “Tell us again how America won World War 2” ?

              • I don’t think a new amendment is needed. 10A is good enough. What it needs is bipartisan buy-in – people need to have real skin in the game, so that if it goes away, it hurts them personally.

                With Trump at the helm as a stark example, you have a very strong argument to explain liberals why 10A is a good idea in general. Furthermore, getting rid of as many laws as possible on federal level would prompt the states to enact their own versions of the same, including on things that they know may come under attack on the federal level again (like abortion access, anti-discrimination laws, or gun control).

                And that’s the compromise here. It’s not about what to enact on the federal level. It’s about, “you guys can do these things in your states, and we can do these things in ours; and this is the list of things that neither of us can do”. It’s long past due to discuss this explicitly, instead of trying to stab each other via SCOTUS (with every such jab destabilizing the system further). Basically, sit down, figure out what the irreconcilable differences are, and agree to disagree on them by moving them to state level. Meanwhile, point out that there are still things on which the Union does provide advantages – like national security/defense, or a free trade zone between states.

                I think that such a compromise is entirely possible, and if it’s seen as a reasonably good deal by the majority on the other side, could hold for a very long time – decades, at least.

              • The 14th amendment effectively repealed the 10th (unless the central government finds some use for the 10th to promote an agenda).

                We can all do a little, here and there, in every state. But that is only legislation that can be swiftly dumped, overturned, or modified by simple majority of those voting.

              • The 14th only repealed the 10th with respect to constitutional rights, which is okay (could be fine tuned, but good enough). The problem is a bunch of stuff that was conjured by SCOTUS out of thin air under the guise of the 14th. That will need to be reined in – and that would have to be a major part of the compromise.

                The other problem is the Wickard v. Filburn decision. That basically gives the feds unlimited power to regulate. It needs to be killed. Liberals will have to accept that it’ll also kill the federal Civil Rights Acts. Conservatives will have to accept that it’ll kill all federal drug laws.

                Both of these can be done without constitutional amendment, though. It just needs SCOTUS to revert its own past decisions.

              • SCOTUS will declare any limit on their existence to be unconstitutional, even a successfully ratified amendment to limit their jurisdiction.

              • That depends on who’s on SCOTUS, no?

                Also, SCOTUS can declare all they want, but if the rest of society agrees to ignore their declarations, there really isn’t anything they can do, because they don’t control the enforcement arm – that’s executive. So if there’s a bipartisan agreement to change the way SCOTUS works, and both parties in the legislature as well as the executive are on board, then it’s going to happen.

              • “That depends on who’s on SCOTUS, no?”
                No. SCOTUS is an organism. The prime directive for any organism is to survive, at all costs.

                Neither party wants to rein-in the SC. It is too important that there always be a court to overrule “the will of the people”. Wink, wink, nod, nod, “Say na more”.

                In the history of the Republic, no congress has ever attempted to limit SC jurisdiction.

              • Neither party wanted Trump, yet here we are.

                If Trump was possible, the establishment is not as powerful as they were assumed to be. This makes a lot of other things possible.

                To remind, there’s always the mini nuclear option of adding more seats to SCOTUS – all it takes is a simple majority in Congress. In fact, I’m fairly sure that this is going to be exercised sooner rather than later – either by Trump himself, when he realizes that his 2-3 appointments aren’t going to make SCOTUS approve a lot of what he wants to do, or else the next Democratic government, when they’ll be facing with a conservative SCOTUS supermajority they cannot hope to break in their lifetimes.

                But I digress – the point here is that it’s totally possible to e.g. add 10 new seats, and fill them with people who have the sole explicit purpose of reverting any past ruling that stands in the place of proper federalization, and then immediately retiring. If Trump were to such an arrangement, I would back it.

              • FDR tried to increase the SC, and pack it with Democrats. SC ultimately ruled the attempt unconstitutional. The organism remained intact.

                As to the Repub establishment. It remains intact. It rules the newcomers with an iron fist. The oldies informed (will also inform on 20Jan) the newbies that the job of the newbies is to fund raise and keep the leadership in power. No serious committee appointments. The “young Turks” are braced up with the message that there will be no major shift in party agenda just because the newbies made the current majorities possible.

                Point being the two major parties will do whatever to remain alive. The Dems are moving further left into Venezuela, the Repubs will act as breakwaters against which the base will smash.

              • > FDR tried to increase the SC, and pack it with Democrats. SC ultimately ruled the attempt unconstitutional. The organism remained intact.

                That’s not how it went down. FDR threatened to do so, and SC – which was at the moment considering several cases that were likely to end up not in favor of the president – had “suddenly” changed their mind, by virtue of a single judge switching his vote. That’s why it’s called what it’s called, namely:


                It was never ruled unconstitutional, because it is not actually unconstitutional. The constitution does not define the number of justices on the court. The initial size was set by an act of Congress, and it was incremented and decremented several times since then, again, every time by an act of Congress.

                Either way, my other point still stands: it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS thinks about it, if everyone else tells them to GTFO.

              • Thank you. My point made…..SC survived as an organism. Why would the SC suddenly vote in such a way to prevent expansion of jurisdiction and power? Because as it was constructed at the time, the justices believed the status quo would be disadvantageous to the court.

                If “everyone” did anything, all the time, without regard to law/regulation…that would be interesting. However, gun owners would then lose the moral high ground.

              • SC survived by conceding its power – something that you claim cannot possibly happen.

                And I’m not promoting doing things against laws/regulations all the time. However, sometimes it is necessary, when the existing laws/regulations result in an unworkable system, while also preventing the necessary changes to that system. Every revolution that happens is against the existing laws and regulations of the system that it tries to replace. It is justifiable, if the goal is not anarchy, but the establishment of new and better (ideally, more just – but, pragmatically speaking, “long-term viable” is already a worthwhile bar to aim for).

                In other words, rule of law is desirable in and of itself, but rule of a particular law that is detrimental to the concept of rule of law is not (just like freedom is desirable in and of itself, but the freedom to limit other people’s freedom is not). Thus, paradoxically, some laws have to be disobeyed, for the sake of rule of law.

              • SC survived, by any means necessary. Survived and reinforced itself. Fighting for survival does not mean that aggression is the only tool. Federal bureaucracy is a shinning example. The bureaucracy has its one agenda, and survives not by revolt or open rebellion, but by ducking and weaving, stalling, reviewing, analyzing, assigning to more research, until whomever is no longer available to threaten the bureaucracy.

              • “Wickard v. Filburn decision”.

                Made it illegal to not engage in commerce. Thought this would have been the SC reasoning for upholding Obamacare (but instead the “Republican” decided O-care is a tax (which should have been challenged as a “head tax”). I would find it entertaining if SC determined that homemade firearms are illegal because they impact commerce by reducing the number of firearms that would otherwise have been traded through normal commerce.

              • The decision itself didn’t make it illegal to not engage the commerce. It was the law that was upheld that decision that did.

                So homemade firearms are not illegal, but only because there’s no federal law making them illegal. If Congress were to pass such a law, under Filburn, it would stand.

        • int9h – typical. The Dems are out and NOW you call for moderation, for scaling back? Where were these cries and desires over the past 8 years?

          As stated – the rules have been thrown out. The Dems will be in majority again and they will use every tool – legal or otherwise – to undo everything a democratic republic is about. We have 4 years, at least, to undo the past 8 and set precedents that will be hard to undo.

          They aren’t democrats or even liberals. They are socialists, through and through, and won’t be satisfied until the U.S. is a marxist state.

          • If you go around wielding federal government as a club, that will be one precedent that will be hard to undo. Everything else will be easy to undo by virtue of that very precedent.

            As far as “you started it”. Personally, I didn’t – I was always a “tenth amendment liberal”. But even if the collective “they” did – you do understand this this is a kindergarten / junior high excuse, right? The adult thing is to show that you’re an adult and de-escalate, leading the other side by example. If you escalate instead, it’ll just keep ratcheting until it blows up (and the higher you manage to get it, the harder it’ll come down).

            And consider this: when it does blow up, EC won’t matter anymore – and even in this past election, there were, what, 2.8 million more people on the other side?

            • If leading by example were to be effective, wouldn’t the radical left have abandoned their agenda and tactics long ago? Restraint in the face of evil only encourages evil. If you want a successful example of how effective proper retaliation can be, check the FAQs on the website of the government of Carthage.

              • If you truly believe that everything and everyone that the left represents is irredeemable evil, then the logical consequence of that is complete physical destruction, by any means necessary. Are you willing to go there?

              • “…then the logical consequence of that is complete physical destruction, by any means necessary. Are you willing to go there?

                Politically? Yes. (Demoncrats and Leftists have declared that only single party (theirs) rule can produce a proper society).

                Physically? Leave me alone, I leave them alone. But make no mistake, we are at 1850.

              • You won’t be able to go there politically for long. That 2.8 million difference in votes is going to be bigger next time. At some point – and likely sooner rather than later – EC will not be enough of a roadblock against the sheer popular vote.

                If you think that this is 1850, wouldn’t it be wise to try to defuse it? The slave states have arguably accelerated the advent of the war by trying to use the federal government to impose their will upon the free states (e.g. via Fugitive Slave Act… ironically, of 1850).

                However, I don’t think that there’s any issue quite like slavery today. I mean, there are certainly many that are very divisive, but none worth killing over, basically. At least this is how it looks from the left; I have a nagging feeling that abortion might be such an issue on the right, for some at least.

              • Hillary got more popular votes. Fact. Democrats got less, overall. Republican control of US legislature, state and local seats is is not because of some sort of EC trickery. Politically, the only way this can go is one party rule. Not that there won’t be other parties, but like in Europe, they will amount to little (we do not have proportional representation).

                Defusing would be nice, but it is a hopeless task. The basic nature of humans is laziness (sloth?). Those who want to destroy initiative, create abject dependency on government, eliminate free thought, offer a wholly attractive agenda. To change that demographic means decades of wins by adults, re-creating a culture of self-respect, sense of accomplishment, and responsible behavior as the norm, once again.

                Culture will not be changed through evenly split visions of America. The founders believed our government/constitution was fit only for a moral and religious people. Those types of people do not revel in the robbing the central treasury in order to allow half the population to live off the efforts of the other half. Believe them when the leftists tell you that they “deserve” all the benefits of society without contributing to it. Believe them when they tell you that they will never back down from “gimme, gimme, gimme”. Believe them when they tell you that people who accomplish anything are lottery winners who owe the rest of society an easy living. Believe them when they tell you they intend to take absolute power over you to enforce their childish selfishness.

              • > Democrats got less, overall. Republican control of US legislature, state and local seats is is not because of some sort of EC trickery.

                Legislature seats have the same problem, just on a smaller scale. Because they’re all single seat districts, you can have 51% voting for R, 49% voting for D, and the single guy representing them all is an R, and those 49% can just go suck on something. On the other hand, any extra votes you get above 50%+1 in that district also don’t matter.

                With even population distribution, this sort of thing would cancel itself out. But because Ds cluster in high-density areas (cities), the system is disproportionally skewed against them – basically, there are a lot more districts that are supermajority D, than there are those that are supermajority R. So Ds get a lot more wasted votes in the cities, and a lot of votes that are effectively canceled out outside of cities.

                Then you add gerrymandering on top of that – which I’ll grant you both parties do, but Republicans do it more, and more effectively (largely because they can, again, because Dem electorate is so tightly clustered). Just look at Austin, which is a city full of liberals, but only has a single D representative – because it’s carved up like a pie, and every slice of the pie is attached to a bigger chunk of the countryside, such that all those D votes are canceled out as much as possible. In each of the six districts that incorporate some part of Austin, city residents are a minority. The only Austin district is blue, because it is drawn to encompass as much Latino vote as possible in one place (including from outside of the city) – i.e. it’s a “minority majority” district.

                So we need to look at the actual votes, not the seats, to see the trends. And I’ll grant you that Republicans did get more votes for the House this time around, and last time, too. But Democrats got more popular vote in 2012 and 2010. And Republicans got fewer votes compared to their own result in 2014, while Democrats got more (this is largely because Republicans turn out to vote more reliably in off-years). So it’s a much more volatile figure to base any long-term assumptions on.

                At the same time, there’s one trend that is not bucking – increase in partisanship, and corresponding decrease in split-ticket voting. If this keeps going in the same direction as it currently does – and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn’t – you’re going to see less and less difference between presidential popular vote, and the same for Congress. I think you see where this goes.

              • Of popular votes, all my life I heard that if all the Demoncrats vote, the Repubs cannot win because the raw number of Dem voters is always greater that what Repubs can ever muster, anywhere.

                Grew up in a Democrat family; first Repub. In those days, there were entities called “conservative Democrats” (using the sloppy language of media, members of the Democratic party should be called Democratics). The adjective “conservative” is important because the believed in self-reliance, hard work, America, self-reliance, and wealth measured by achievement and improved financial condition (we didn’t quite have a good mark on the last one). After hearing “conservative” values for so many years, I noted that those same values were a fixture of the Republicans. So, like an idiot, I asked why the family weren’t Republicans. Two words, “Union” and “FDR”. Unions were the source of wealth, and FDR saved the country from the depression. Obviously, both ideas were wrong, but they kept us Democrats. Watching the radical left take over the Democrat party, I became a Republican because that party seemed to be the remaining home for conservatives. Family remained Dems, but constantly complained that they didn’t understand what happened to the party. All along, family insisted that if only all the Democrats (even as that creature faded into extinction) would just vote, there would never be a Republican in office. They did not grasp what it was they were asking for…even as they failed to understand it while looking at the morph into statism. I learned to have a healthy respect for refusal to admit the obvious.

                At any rate, stasis cannot endure because there is no viable mechanism to impose stasis externally. “In the end, there can be only one”. We are at the brink.

              • There’s no stasis. But there are periods of stability, which encourage prosperity and growth.

                If what you want is a state of permanent war until full, complete and irreversible defeat of your opponents, then you need to be honest with yourself, and admit that 1) it will have to be a physical defeat, so you’re talking about killing or enslaving millions of people, and 2) such a thing would require an actual shooting war to execute, and it will come to your town and your house.

                For a good example of what happened to a country where both sides chose the total war path, you can look at the Russian Civil War. The American one was peanuts in comparison.

              • Total war is a bit of a messy thing, not? I’ve also seen tidy little scrapes where the intent was to “send a message” to the others that they should politely adopt more peaceful means of conflict resolution. Message returned, “No such address, no such zone”.

                How ’bout politically destroying the enemy in a way that neuters the ability to recover to a national option? Turn the ruled for radicals against them? Attack, attack, attack. No pussyfooting about, calling them, “My esteemed colleague”.

              • > How ’bout politically destroying the enemy in a way that neuters the ability to recover to a national option

                There’s no such thing when the political differences are that great. At some point, if it becomes clear that there’s no political way to fight back, and there never will be, it becomes a tyranny – and people on the receiving end will switch from words to bullets. Heck, American Revolution was started over a smaller difference of opinion (it widened further later, but the initial grievances were fairly mundane).

              • Agree. Given how far we have fallen, there is zero possibility of a third revolution to throw-off tyranny.

              • > Believe them when the leftists tell you that they “deserve” all the benefits of society without contributing to it. Believe them when they tell you that they will never back down from “gimme, gimme, gimme”.

                I’m a leftist. I earn roughly 4x the average household income in US (and mine is a single earner household at that, although I am married) – and I pay taxes for all of that.

                This also holds true in general. Any map that shows how much states and counties draw from the federal or the respective state budget for each tax dollar they send to it, makes it clear that blue states/counties subsidize the red. Sure, a lot of people on welfare vote for Democrats; but so do a lot of productive workers with high salaries.

              • Kinda hard to be a Leftist if one accepts income inequality, approves of wealth gained outside government largess, holds self personally responsible for outcomes, believes that government intervention is not the source of happiness. By definition, leftists are statists. For statists, there is no room for the individual to act independently of the state.

              • There is considerable amount of spectrum between “government intervention is the source of happiness” and “government intervention is often necessary to ensure the security of sources of happiness”. And most of it lies on the left.

                Your definition of “leftist” is a strawman, just as much as the common “racist hick” stereotype of a Trump voter on the left.

              • “…government intervention is often necessary to ensure the security of sources of happiness”.

                Nowhere in the constitution, nor was it in the minds of the founders. People were to be left to their own devices, uneven, inequitable, unfair outcomes.

                If you think my idea of a Leftist is a strawman, review again the Russian revolution outcome, communist China, Venezuela, North Korea, (to name a few). No true leftist ever wants people to make their own way; always the government deciding what is right, what is fair, who should determine…always the government.

              • > Nowhere in the constitution, nor was it in the minds of the founders. People were to be left to their own devices, uneven, inequitable, unfair outcomes

                The fact that the Constitution established a government already indicates that you’re wrong. If people are to be let completely to their own devices, a government is plainly unnecessary.

                Then there’s this bit in the Constitution:

                “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

                What exactly is to be understood by “general welfare” can and should be debated. But it’s clear that the Founders did have some notion of such a thing in mind when they wrote this clause. Which is, again, counter to the notion that “people were to be left to their own devices”. As is taxation.

                Then, of course, the Constitution, as originally authored, largely defines the balance of power between the federal government and the states. It doesn’t talk much about the same between the states and their respective citizen, and it’s for a good reason: because that’s where most of regulation was supposed to be happening. And there was plenty of such regulation in the colonies already, and the majority of it remained when they became states.

                That, and well, the whole slavery thing is kinda diametrically opposite to “left to their own devices”, don’t you think?

                So, no, the Founders weren’t socialists. But they weren’t minarchists, either. They wanted a small federal government, not necessarily a small government in general.

              • Left to their own devices is exactly what the people of the states were supposed to be…not regulated by federal decree or legislation. As to slavery, it was a constitutionally protected “right” (“all other persons”), although there is absolutely zero mention of “slave” in the constitution. Whether good or evil, slavery was LEGAL in the states because the federal constitution did not declare it illegal. The states were not prohibited from establishing, within their borders, how to categorized “all other persons”. Certain states declared “all other persons” as property, which allowed trade, and recovery of “lost” (runaway) property. Attempts by the national legislature to overturn slavery without constitutional amendment, became the flashpoint between states. Finally, a constitutional amendment was ratified after force of arms. Hardly a shining example of “democracy” in action.

                Yes the founders wanted small federal government. The also wanted freedom within the individual states to construct a society how they saw fit. State constitutions were not copies of the federal one.

                “…promote the general welfare” is one of those statements where the Devil has his playground. There are logical arguments to be made that the federal government, by that phrase and the commerce clause, has power to regulate every facet of life. The 10th amendment was supposed to limit this. After the Civil War, the constitution was amended to overrule the 10th, and make every state a province, and every citizen a citizen of the federal government. With the “promote” and commerce clauses, states are a legal fiction, with less legal standing than corporations.

                We will never see this country return to the principles of its founding.

              • My point is that Founders were okay with slavery – some reluctantly, only because it was a compromise that made the Union possible, others enthusiastically. And slavery is inherently counter to the notion of “live and let live”. It appears that you actually agree with my point, namely:

                “Yes the founders wanted small federal government. The also wanted freedom within the individual states to construct a society how they saw fit. State constitutions were not copies of the federal one.”

                That’s exactly what I’m advocating for here. A small federal government, enough to provide for common defense and guarantee freedom of trade and movement between states, and protection of some basic political rights to ensure that constituent states remain free in nature (e.g. I do think it’s a good idea to enforce freedom of speech on federal level). And varied state governments, small or large, depending on how their citizens decide and enshrine in their respective constitutions.

                The problem is that this model is advocated by the side on the receiving end of the federal government club, while the other side (which was previously in that position) abandons it as soon as they get the club in their hands. This is a vicious circle that must be broken, if the Union is to endure.

                But the only way it can be broken is if the side that has the power will find the will to break it while they are in the power – and utilize the entirety of the power that they have for this one purpose. Republicans, right now, have a historic concentration of power in their hands – not just president and Congress, but also (in a year or two, anyway), SCOTUS. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – there will not be another for many decades to come. Republicans are also a party that had, at least, paid lip service to federalism and the 10th more so than Democrats.

                Now they have a chance to deliver on either the promises they were making with respect to “small government”, or the hypocrisy they were accused on account of the same.

                The ball is in your court. Where we go from now is largely up to you – and so is the immediate responsibility for the consequences.

              • Ball ain’t in my court. I trust neither major party to do what is right. As noted before, Republican doesn’t mean “conservative”, “small government”, individual liberty.

                Both parties like big government. It is merely two groups of socialists arguing over who can run the most efficient and effective socialist state.

                SCOTUS appointments rendering Repubs three branches? Think John Roberts. Justices have a maddening habit of moving opposite their core principles, trying to prove they are oh so circumspect that they disadvantage the party that appointed them. This is not neutrality/objectiveness.

                Watch TV for a few days. Note that almost every pontificating protoplasm is talking about how Trump will do this, or do that. They have become so comfortable with imperial presidents that they ignore the congressional temperment….which is largely anti-Trump.

                Hoping we will see history made yet again, when the Republican House and Senate put forward bills they like, and Trump vetoes them time and again. Popcorn on the counter, beer in the fridge. Gonna be laff-a-minute after 20Jan.

              • You may not be a Republican, and Republicans may not be conservatives; but they certainly do pay lip service to conservatives and not liberals. You have their ear, not by much perhaps, but still to the extent that I can never hope to get. So you can advocate for federalization and states’ rights from within the party in a way I cannot do.

                I do the same on my side. But over here, it’s more about laying the groundwork for the future right now. And I don’t see much chance for my arguments to be heard, if Republicans in power piss all over 10A while they can.

              • In the last 60yrs, the people wanting federal control over most everything have not been Repubs, or conservatives. They are the same old Hamiltonians from the founding; strong central government. 10A is the refuge of the liberty-minded.

              • > In the last 60yrs, the people wanting federal control over most everything have not been Repubs

                Really? Nixon, Reagan, Bush weren’t Republicans?

                And please don’t go all RINO. A label means what it means at any given moment, not what it meant 150 years ago. Reagan would be a RINO today (and Republicans of 1950s would consider him a crazy nut). Brands are more enduring than ideologies, unfortunately.

              • Political Correctness, equality of outcomes (founders would have taken the vapors over that), safe spaces, right to be free of inconvenience, redistribution of wealth, welfare that destroys personal initiative…did not come from Nixon, Reagan, nor Bush.

              • Didn’t it? What would you call civil asset forfeiture if not a massive redistribution of wealth? I’ll grant you that it isn’t redistribution for the purpose of reducing inequality – quite the opposite, in fact – but it’s redistribution anyway, no? And it was created by Nixon, and massively expanded by Reagan.

                But anyway, you are changing the goalposts. You were talking about “people wanting federal control over most everything”. This is far broader than political correctness or wealth redistribution. Nixon, for example, essentially created the War on Drugs, massively expanding federal regulation and its enforcement. Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which enables large scale warrantless wiretapping by the federal government to this day. Bush’s signature is on the PATRIOT Act – ’nuff said.

              • If it gets rid of bad guys, a little collateral damage is the price of freedom. Nothing free about freedom.

              • So do background checks on gun transfers, no? “Getting rid of bad guys” is a universal excuse for government doing whatever it wants to be doing – it just needs to adjust the definition of “bad guy” as needed. If you consider it a valid justification, there’s no expansion of government that it couldn’t justify. I mean, that’s exactly what the Nazis told people they were doing when they were loading Jews into trains to all those camps…

                Although I’d be curious to hear how civil asset forfeiture helps “getting rid of bad guys” in any way, for example. So far as I can see, all it does is let the government claim that their expenses are lower than what they actually are, by providing for an unaccounted-for channel to extort money from the populace.

              • Not a fan of government, at all. Minimum necessary for defense of the nation, minimum necessary to keep the states from warring against each other. Beyond that, the only government/law that should exist is whichever law you can personally enforce.

              • Oh, and are the consequences of the War on Drugs – which, to remind, include a prison population larger than anyone in the world, in both absolute numbers and per capita; larger than Russia, China and Iran – “a little collateral damage” to you?

              • Nope. Not collateral damage. Direct reward for violating the law. Under the “legalize drugs” theory, one might just as well advocate for zero laws (or no law to prohibit you favorite criminal activity). NO LAWS = NO CRIMINALS; equals no prisoners, either.

                What is collateral damage is all the random, innocent victims of criminals, drugs or no.

              • What victims? Drug prohibition is all about victimless crimes.

                In any case, if you want it so much, do it on state level. Why are the feds involved in it without a constitutional amendment authorizing them to do so?

                And, really – do you support drug prohibition? If you do, you have absolutely no moral ground to so much as squeak about “government overreach”, on any level.