It's a reading of constitutional law that insists that the only thing that matters is what they can shallowly read in their pocket constitution, while totally ignoring most of the constitution itself and any of the surrounding court precedent. :)
Eadmund incorrectly notes "The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments", and cites the tenth amendment while asking "What’s the Constitutional basis for that law?"
Duh, the appointments clause in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause. :3
> Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers. The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with "broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise" of its more specific authorities. The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices. Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives. The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.
Yes, and then Article I, Section 8 goes on to explain what counts as the ‘common Defence and general Welfare’ when it enumerates the Congress’s powers.
That’s not Sovereign Citizen nonsense — it’s very basic constitutional law. Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example.
The Supreme Court has decided what ‘the general welfare’ means, and it is not limited to the listed powers. This information is not difficult to find, as would be expected given the last 90ish years of spending that is obviously not limited to the list of powers.
Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court.
