An idea that's time has come. And not the only one.

[Mac1958]

Here's Sleepy Donald McCankles about to face plant into his meal at his golf club a few days ago.

My goodness! He looks like he needs THREE hands to lift a bottle of water!!!

Funny to watch the cult, after what they said about Biden, having to spin for their leader as he rots before our eyes.

He's the oldest eight year old in the history of historical histories.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes, FDR, a Dem, ever did it.

Trump = Washington

FDR not so much

Moron, "it" was running for third term.

2 Republicans tried and failed.

They didn't have some sort of civic objection to the idea, they just couldn't pull it off.

Just like power addicted degenerate Trump can't pull it off and he knows it - he is too ******* old to scheme his way to office again in 2028. You are just going to have to get yourself some other Dear Leader to peddle bullshit for.

 

[struth]

Moron, "it" was running for third term.

2 Republicans tried and failed.

They didn't have some sort of civic objection to the idea, they just couldn't pull it off.

Just like power addicted degenerate Trump can't pull it off and he knows it - he is too ******* old to run again in 2028.

and FDR was the only one that ever actually did IT. Don't you get it? Be President for a third term, heck he didn't stop there, he ran for a 4th.

Dems, like any other leftist regime, from Pol Pot, to Castro, can't let go over power, they are authoritarian by nature

 

[Nostra]

General welfare loophole?

Yep. Politicians use it as a crutch to waste money on worthless programs.

 

[Nostra]

It's not a loop hole, it's that i tsems to be forgotten, and, generationally speaking, never learned, that its original intent was meant to limit government.

I've explained this quite thoroughly in the past, so not doing it again.

But as a courtesy to any serious passers-by who might be genuinely interested in its intent, and since I have the material handy, here's at least a relevant copypasta from a great book in which the topic is briefly discussed.


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies"the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government.

The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts andprovide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on thepower granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." Congress possesses no"general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in TheFederalist number 83.


Hamilton's Opinion

9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflectingthe controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do anyother thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."


The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining andDefining the Original, Controlling Intent

10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) inascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have neve ramended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.


The Founders' Warnings

11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement ofthe Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notablynumbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by publicservants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ."Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."


If anyone is interested in the content of the book in its entirety but hates to read thick books, it's an easy read, respectfully speaking.

The American ideal of 1776: the twelve basic American principles - Hardcover

''Intelligent choice--between 1776 Americanism and conflicting Isms (chiefly Socialism in the USA today)--requires primarily thorough knowledge of these Principles.

The book is the essential tool for all who wish to be worthy trustees for today's children and future generations of their just heritage: this Ideal, its eternal values and the supporting Constitution, as The Founders intended. They believed to default about this is to betray.''

(emphasis the author's)

That needs its own thread.

 

[Nostra]

And now your cult is ignoring Trump's obvious dementia and physical decline just as Biden's cult ignored his.

You Dimwinger Cult idiots gave up the right to whine about the mental faculties of anyone after sucking Biden;s shriveled nutsack for 4 years.

 

[g5000]

You Dimwinger Cult idiots gave up the right to whine about the mental faculties of anyone after sucking Biden;s shriveled nutsack for 4 years.

Yes, your cult revolves around the principle that Two Wrongs Make A Right Winger™.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Because the times they lived in didn't allow for the contemplation of an elected official so egregiously malevolent as trump, or an electorate so thoroughly duped as to elect him in the first place.

Because the times they lived in didn't allow for the contemplation of electing a brain dead vegetable named Joseph Biden, or an electorate so thoroughly duped as to elect him in the first place.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Mac-7]

That's the kind of vacuous comment I've come to expect from you. Be specific about what suggestion for reform by the author you object to.

It strikes me that you guys suddenly got religion after trimp unexpectedly got elected president

Because trump has not found or created powers that previously didnt exist and were used by dem presidents

 

[berg80]

Because the times they lived in didn't allow for the contemplation of electing a brain dead vegetable named Joseph Biden, or an electorate so thoroughly duped as to elect him in the first place.

Fixed that for you...

No, you didn't. You deflected away from how the Criminal-in-Chief's base of voters decided they wanted four more years of criminal, incompetent, boorish showmanship by one of the greatest conmen to walk the earth. Largely based on unfulfilled promises on ending inflation.

Trump vowed to end inflation ‘on Day 1’ of his presidency. Now he’s blaming it on Biden.​

Trump vowed to end inflation ‘on Day 1’ of his presidency. Now he’s blaming it on Biden.

After a Bureau of Labor Statistics report noted that inflation was up, Trump quickly pointed to former President Joe Biden.

www.ms.now

 

[ThisIsMe]

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform​

-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

www.lawfaremedia.org

This article was written near the end of trump 1.0. Nothing has come of it. A fact that's proven to be a colossal mistake. Perhaps excused by the belief trump's political career was over after he launched a failed plot to overturn the 2020 election.

Clearly, as evidenced by events that have taken place during trump 2.0, the prez's absolute pardon power either needs dramatic reform or a constitutional amendment to end it. It isn't the only thing badly in need of reform. The most important among them, IMO, being........

-Reform of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to prevent perpetual “acting” appointments.
Redefining “emergency” authority to limit such declarations generally.
-Enhanced inspectors general protection.
-Overturn Franklin v. Massachusetts.
-Define emoluments violations and create a right of action.
-Expediting judicial review of congressional demands for records in relation to oversight and impeachment.

It's amazing that you all came to this conclusion because of trump and not because of biden. By the way, his use of the pardon would also transgress founders expectations.

 

[Lockback]

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform​

-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

www.lawfaremedia.org

This article was written near the end of trump 1.0. Nothing has come of it. A fact that's proven to be a colossal mistake. Perhaps excused by the belief trump's political career was over after he launched a failed plot to overturn the 2020 election.

Clearly, as evidenced by events that have taken place during trump 2.0, the prez's absolute pardon power either needs dramatic reform or a constitutional amendment to end it. It isn't the only thing badly in need of reform. The most important among them, IMO, being........

-Reform of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to prevent perpetual “acting” appointments.
Redefining “emergency” authority to limit such declarations generally.
-Enhanced inspectors general protection.
-Overturn Franklin v. Massachusetts.
-Define emoluments violations and create a right of action.
-Expediting judicial review of congressional demands for records in relation to oversight and impeachment.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform​

-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform

What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?

www.lawfaremedia.org

This article was written near the end of trump 1.0. Nothing has come of it. A fact that's proven to be a colossal mistake. Perhaps excused by the belief trump's political career was over after he launched a failed plot to overturn the 2020 election.

Clearly, as evidenced by events that have taken place during trump 2.0, the prez's absolute pardon power either needs dramatic reform or a constitutional amendment to end it. It isn't the only thing badly in need of reform. The most important among them, IMO, being........

-Reform of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to prevent perpetual “acting” appointments.
Redefining “emergency” authority to limit such declarations generally.
-Enhanced inspectors general protection.
-Overturn Franklin v. Massachusetts.
-Define emoluments violations and create a right of action.
-Expediting judicial review of congressional demands for records in relation to oversight and impeachment.

You must be REALLY at Bidens pardons.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If the R's are in a position to block the listed reforms I have little doubt they will. Abuses of the system ripe for exploitation are kinda their thing.

Supreme Court Is Asked to Take Another Ax to Campaign Finance Limits​

The case centers on efforts by Republican officials to lift limits on how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-campaign-finance.html

do you think dems would curb the power of pardon if it was a democrat president and congress? OP said the idea was floated after trump 1, but was never acted upon during Biden, now they want to talk about it during trump 2.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I can only imagine the blank stares of utter disbelief if the Founders were told one day a prez who lost an election would try to steal it. And following the failed attempt would be re-elected.

I think they'd be just as concerned with state courts changing election laws.

 

[Lockback]

Joe Biden loved the pardon power.
He used it to pardon his entire family, including his dope addict son.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Care to develop that snarky remark in to an actual, fully completed thought? Don't be shy.

Yeah, ill do it. Dems dont give a shit about the founders, they think the founders were a bunch of racists. Dems also dont give a shit about the cotus.

I cant speak for him, but I think that is what he was trying to say.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Both sides are not ‘the same.’

The thread is about the corruption, criminality, and contempt for the rule of law unique to Trump and the GOP – and the fact that Republicans will oppose any attempt at reform, oppose any effort to address the damage to the rule of law both have caused.

You had an opportunity under biden for reform. Why didnt you all do it then? Probably because you weren't interested in curbing bidens power, just trumps.

 

[Lockback]

You had an opportunity under biden for reform. Why didnt you all do it then? Probably because you weren't interested in curbing bidens power, just trumps.

The hypocrisy rears its ugly head every single day.
They just don't get it.

 

[AntonToo]

and FDR was the only one that ever actually did IT. Don't you get it? Be President for a third term, heck he didn't stop there, he ran for a 4th.

Dems, like any other leftist regime, from Pol Pot, to Castro, can't let go over power, they are authoritarian by nature

It's like talking to a ******* wall. NOTHING gets through.