Donald Trump to Governors: We’re Giving Power Back to the States

Trump Walks Govs Assoc-APPresident Donald Trump promised a large crowd of American governors that he would work to redirect power from the federal government to the states.

“We’re going to give you back a lot of the powers that have been taken away from states and great people and great governors, and you can control it better than the federal government because you’re right on top of it,” Trump said.

The president delivered a speech at the National Governors Association meeting on Monday.

He explained that more states needed to compete for the best solutions around the country, citing the importance of citizens holding their state governors accountable.

“They know the best how to spend their dollars and how to take care of the people within each state,” Trump said, referring to state elected officials. “And states are different and people are different. So the governors are going to have a lot more decision-making ability than they have right now.”

read more:

Views: 393

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That was how The Constitution intended government to work in the first place in order to prevent other words.....obama!



Take that liberal fascists!

two repeals would make it happen. REPEAL the 14th and 17th amendments.

simple... if the word REPEAL wasn't a pejorative among lawmakers/politicians.  

What Does Pejorative Mean ??

Just Asking

as a noun or adjective;

a word expressing contempt or disapproval.

... maybe it would have been better to say - if repeal wasn't a dirty word among lawmakers/politicians. 

in the land of infinite laws, repealing a law (or constitutional amendment) is rare. when's the last time we saw any law repealed??  'lawmakers' obviously have a strong aversion to the idea.

I don't think we need to start repealing parts of our national constitution .  it sets a bad precedent


do you realize that the 14th amendment made states subordinate to the federal government?   ...and that was contrary to the core intent of the original design the founders created and the 1st 100 years of our country's form of government?

so, if it has more than proven to be a bad mistake - repealing it would still be bad precedent? A poisonous amendment should remain in place because admitting a horrible mistake and correcting it is bad precedent?

and the 17th amendment removed any remaining influence on federal laws the states had left after the 14th amendment made states subordinate to fed/gov. It made the states completely powerless in the fed/gov lawmaking process.

the stated goal is 'giving power back to the states'


thanx Jea and Manny

--- and no disrespect for Lois intended at all;

I think your opinion is valid and I somewhat share it I think, in that I don't want amending the constitution more to become common. I just want the poison wrongfully added to the recipe removed, and then left alone. At least for quite a while to allow the corrected recipe time to have an effect.

But we've already seen what the poisonous amendments have produced, and it's exactly what the founders/Locke/others knew and said 300 years ago. We can believe our eyes and admit we predictably ruined the recipe and correct our obvious mistakes.... can't we?



I only hope that giving power back to the states includes giving back property taken by the Socialists under the Antiquities Act of 1906.  The property belongs to the states, if you support the constitution, along with the natural resources on and under the ground.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service