First of all, that would be insanely expensive. Secondly that’s not going to prevent the executive from vetoing bills, it’s not like trump actually cares about red states.
Reapportioning federal spending is indeed how to play politics. The republicans do it, and “our” democrats don’t.
Your refutation falls on deaf ears here, as if we had no levers to change the fact that blue states pay more in taxes, and red states get more than they pay, and the dems don’t EVER even try to change it back.
Reapportioning federal spending is indeed how to play politics. The republicans do it, and “our” democrats don’t.
Right, I never said that they shouldn’t be more aggressive. Just that reapportioning spending doesn’t affect veto powers.
The simple fact is that the executive branch has allocated a lot of power over the last couple decades that the legislative branch will have a hard time countering even if they are acting in unison.
The executive branch has been accumulating power long before a few decades back. All century if not sooner, and the feds have been accruing illegal power across the board. Interstate commerce is drawn so broad they have near unlimited authority. Prohibition for instance, not a fed power, that’s reserved for the states barring intersate sales.
The executive branch has been accumulating power long before a few decades back.
Yes, but it’s accelerated since the early 00s.
All century if not sooner, and the feds have been accruing illegal power across the board
I don’t know if you could call it illegal, the supreme court kinda decides that.
Interstate commerce is drawn so broad they have near unlimited authority.
Are you talking about global trade…? Or is this some anti Federalist rhetoric?
Prohibition for instance, not a fed power, that’s reserved for the states barring interstate sales.
Oh shit… An actual anti-federalist argument being made in 2026. So rare to meat a person from the 1920s being able to use the Internet.
Prohibition was legalized because it was made into a constitutional amendment and backed up by federal legislation. You could make an argument that it shouldn’t have been done, but the supreme court at the time declared it was the law of the land.
First of all, that would be insanely expensive. Secondly that’s not going to prevent the executive from vetoing bills, it’s not like trump actually cares about red states.
Reapportioning federal spending is indeed how to play politics. The republicans do it, and “our” democrats don’t.
Your refutation falls on deaf ears here, as if we had no levers to change the fact that blue states pay more in taxes, and red states get more than they pay, and the dems don’t EVER even try to change it back.
Right, I never said that they shouldn’t be more aggressive. Just that reapportioning spending doesn’t affect veto powers.
The simple fact is that the executive branch has allocated a lot of power over the last couple decades that the legislative branch will have a hard time countering even if they are acting in unison.
The executive branch has been accumulating power long before a few decades back. All century if not sooner, and the feds have been accruing illegal power across the board. Interstate commerce is drawn so broad they have near unlimited authority. Prohibition for instance, not a fed power, that’s reserved for the states barring intersate sales.
Yes, but it’s accelerated since the early 00s.
I don’t know if you could call it illegal, the supreme court kinda decides that.
Are you talking about global trade…? Or is this some anti Federalist rhetoric?
Oh shit… An actual anti-federalist argument being made in 2026. So rare to meat a person from the 1920s being able to use the Internet.
Prohibition was legalized because it was made into a constitutional amendment and backed up by federal legislation. You could make an argument that it shouldn’t have been done, but the supreme court at the time declared it was the law of the land.