@9GKCFN87mos7MO
The fact that an agency is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution does not mean it is unconstitutional. This is a spurious argument.
@9HS65M95mos5MO
Strawman. Federal government functions which can be shown to be unconstitutional, especially as examined under the 9th and 10th Amendments, should be abolished. "Explicit mention" is irrelevant.
@98L5M5C1yr1Y
The federal debt is out of control (31 trillion), and these non-constitution agencies are a big part.
Cutting public spending budgets will only hurt the everyday people and cities that rely on that spending to ensure their lives and homes can maintain a well-kept state. It will also put the families and people in tougher situations into even harder circumstances, creating more harm to lower-class citizens.
@9FQ6Y668mos8MO
The fact that an agency is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution does not mean it is unconstitutional. This is a spurious argument. The Constitution clearly gives the Executive the power to enforce laws passed by Congress, and the creation of an agency to write and apply rules for carrying out those laws is inherent in the grant of this power. The Constitution does not prohibit creating administrative structures, and the Supreme Court, despite bumping up against these agencies repeatedly through the decades, has never even hinted that the existence of these agencies is problematic cons… Read more
@9FCV3VJ8mos8MO
Government spending is driving higher inflation, which hurts everyone - especially those on fixed incomes, and adding more debt, which will burden future generations.
@9GSCJQ66mos6MO
Pure democracy in of itself is unequipped to properly and effectively carry out the duties of government
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...