The Government Does Not Yet Have the Authority to Give You What You Want

     The article below was written as a reaction to the Joe Biden Administration failing to deliver the $1400 checks, and the $15 minimum wage, that it appeared to have promised during the election.





     The mainstream media and the college law professors don't know or care how the law actually works. The federal government does not have the power to give raises to people whom it does not employ.

     Raising the minimum wage to $15 will not help 32 million workers, as its proponents claim it will. It will only help 0.2% of the non-tipped workforce. That raise would only help people who already work for the federal government, and earn below $15 per hour.

     The government does not have the power or the authority to do the things you want it to do.
     Joe Biden is a constitutionalist. He does not care that people want a $15 minimum wage, and he doesn't want to tell you that the reason he's not giving it to you, is because it's unconstitutional. He certainly doesn't want you to learn how to use the amendment process to allow the federal government to do what you want it to do.

     Americans need voter education and constitutional education badly. Study the 9th and 10th Amendments, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (the Enumerated Powers), and how the Constitution is amended. This will help you understand which duties are supposed to be held by the national government, and which are supposed to be held by the state and local governments, and the people.
     American voters should stop blaming only Republicans for denying them what they want. It is not only the Republican Party legislators, but also the Constitution - and President Biden - who don't want people to get the changes to the law which they are demanding.
     We can argue all day long about what kind of laws we should have, and which duties belong in the hands of the national or state governments, all day long. But the fact remains: the Constitution is the law, and it is a limitation upon what kinds of laws may exist.
     Amending Article I Section 8, to allow or require the national government to exclusively regulate certain fields of law and policies, is the only way to achieve things like a national minimum wage increase that resembles what progressives are asking for. It is the only way to achieve a minimum wage increase, a federal jobs guarantee, or any sort of mass debt forgiveness program, in a way that is not unconstitutional.
     Enshrining reforms in the Constitution, with proper amendment, is the only way to shield those policies from easy tampering; whether by majorities, minorities, governors, presidential vetoes and signing statements, or activist judges. We must cease pursuing temporary fixes to our numerous economic and political problems, and instead resolve to pursue permanent forms of meaningful, revolutionary amounts of change.

     This country was founded on democratic-republicanism, but also on liberal-conservatism. We have to conserve the progress and freedom that we have achieved. We must consider social republicanism - specifically enshrining the people's human rights into the document by which the people's republic is constituted - in order to specifically enumerate more of our rights.
     We can, and must, do this, without suggesting that the mere appearance of these rights in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that those are our only rights. Moreover, the mere appearance of a subject in the Constitution does not necessarily connote that the national government retains the exclusive right to legislate upon that manner.
     Through education about the Ninth Amendment, the separation of powers, and natural rights which originate from the virtue of our humanity, we can overcome the perceived conflict between (positive) rights and (negative) freedoms.

     Once we realize that we are parts of the Earth - breathing its air, drinking its water, and being made of food that grew out of the ground - we assert our right to hunt, gather, forage, farm, or glean whatever we may need, in order to survive.
     We have a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to survive, since if we exercise our right to refuse to use the state's money, then we constantly find ourselves on other people's property, in order to obtain the food and water we need. To say that a person has a right to eat, does not necessarily impose an obligation upon someone else to provide him with that food. It is a mere recognition that we cannot survive without eating, drinking, breathing, etc..
     We do not need private property in the means of production, money, or licensed work in order to survive. We need to do enough labor as it takes to acquire what we need to survive, and perform as much action as is necessary to assert our freedom and independence. But we will not die if we run out of money, or ability to solely own a factory or workplace, in the same way that we will die if we run out of food, water, and air.
     Shelter and medicine are gray areas, but it is worth noting that the value of these things are kept artificially high through zoning laws, construction laws, high costs of building permits, medical patent laws, unnecessary sales taxes, and professional licensing laws, and could thus be much less expensive, and therefore require less work in order to purchase.
     There is no reason why we cannot recognize human rights, and human needs, without endorsing the use of a centralized, violent state apparatus to "give" us (or recognize) those rights. Such apparati have rarely done so.
     We must therefore withdraw our trust and support - and also our consent - from the government, and from its officials and employees. Being that governments are instituted to preserve men's freedom, a government which lacks the consent of the governed is not legitimate.

     To say "the time to trust government is over" is to suggest that it was ever wise to trust government. All government which operates on the statist model - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory - exists in order to legitimize the violence used by its employees, and to legalize their crimes.
     The state exists to criminalize the violence of its subjects, and to legalize the violence of its officials. The state establishes a border within which the government has an exclusive right to inflict politically motivated initimidation - terror, that is - upon a populace, and to give them nowhere to turn for defense or redress of their grievances, except for that very same aggressive state.

    The state is a self-legitimizing terrorist entity.
     We cannot trust the government to tell us the truth about what the law is, nor about how it works. Nor can we trust the government to allow us the ability to hunt, forage, glean, homestead, etc., enough to survive, without resorting to begging the government's help. Why would government help us become independent? It doesn't benefit the government at all to help us acquire a home as property, in a way which the government can't simply take away from us, after charging us an inordinate amount of property taxes.
     We can't even trust the government to deliver on its "promise" of $1400 checks. If the government would yank a $1400 check out of your hand, then why wouldn't it collude with universities to make you hate the very same document (the Constitution) which you could easily amend in order to achieve legal reforms that could result in you having more freedom, opportunity, and prosperity?
     There's no reason to hate the Constitution, and "throw the baby out with the bath water" in terms of ditching tools that could be used to limit government and separate powers, just because the Constitution still allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime (now referred to as "the new slavery" in the prisons).
     The Thirteenth Amendment is amended - and violence, secrecy, and torture are drastically reduced in prisons - the sooner people will no longer be able to rightfully claim that the Constitution allows slavery to continue to exist. It certainly does exist now; not only the outright chattel slavery,  forced labor, and sex slavery which exists in the prisons, but also a general state of political slavery (and wage and debt slavery) which exists in the so-called "free" population as well.


     Given that we have a slave society, why should we trust the government to afford us either freedom or "rights" (however we define that term)? Why trust a corrupt government more, when we know it can't do what we want it to, and wouldn't do those things even if it had the rightful authority?
     It's time to stop lying to ourselves. We must engage in mutual aid, direct action, charitable acts, voluntary association, voluntary cooperation, and transparent self-governance of firms. That is the only way to bring production and innovation back to the United States, which the government insists on either penalizing and deterring through inordinate tax rates, or else only promoting for the sake of the financial benefit of the people whose corrupt business interests run the government.

     
     We can use the Constitution to limit government and abolish slavery, or we can resort to anarchy to abolish government and slavery. Until our governments stop lying to us, neither alternative should be taken off of the table.
     But additionally, if the government insists upon continuing to lie - and to mislead us about the Constitution's meaning, and brainwash us against what is good about that document, and about limited government - then anarchy will look like a rational choice in comparison to even the most permanent and meaningful reform.
     That's because such reform will continue to look impossible, because the majority of Americans will have no idea how to formally achieve those reforms through law in a way that cannot be easily tampered with.

     I have previously commented on the topics mentioned above; in three articles and three videos. Those posts are linked below.
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/half-of-federal-laws-do-not-apply-to.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-to-political-science-professor.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/links-to-all-of-my-videos-about.html

Written and Published on February 22nd, 2021

How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress

     The Enumerated Powers of Congress are found in the 18 clauses that make up Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The first seventeen clauses list the legislative powers that are expressly delegated to Congress by the people. These are the issues that we allow Congress to legislate upon.

     Many Americans believe that the federal government has the power to regulate on matters such as health, education, welfare, unemployment and retirement insurance, etc.. This is simply not true, however; because, according to the 10th Amendment, all powers not granted to Congress remain vested in the states or the people.

     Programs and departments which have expanded government - like the various departments of health, education, welfare (etc.) which have existed over the years - have become part of our government, despite the fact that Congress is supposed to have nothing to do with those issues.

     These programs and departments have, for the most part, become part of our government, through unconstitutional acts of Congress, which the Supreme Court negligently failed to identify as unconstitutional. Several unconstitutional federal departments exist because the president at the time abused his "presidential reorganizational authority" to organize his cabinet, so as to pretend that he had the authority to "re-organize" whole industries and issues into the executive department.

     Neither the General Welfare Clause (Clause 1), nor the Interstate Commerce Clause (Clause 3), nor the Necessary and Proper Clause (Clause 18) permit regulation by Congress of issues not explicitly enumerated (that is, listed or named) in Article I, Section 8. Nor does Clause 17 permit the federal government to own and manage anywhere near the amount of land it currently owns. Nor do Amendments XI through XXVII of the Constitution. Nor do the "unenumerated rights" recognized in Amendment IX, denote the existence of unenumerated authorities given to the government; that's actually the exact opposite of what the 9th Amendment really means.

     The supposed needs to "promote the general welfare", "regulate interstate commerce", and do whatever is "necessary and proper", have all been used as convenient excuses to grow the government, based on intentional misreadings of the law.
     The "general welfare" doesn't mean "whatever benefits anybody in the country"; it refers to the idea that taxes and spending should be done for the benefit of well-being of all people in the country, which requires indirect taxes to be equally apportioned and direct taxes to be uniform.
     The need to "regulate interstate commerce" should not be construed to imply that the federal government may legislate on any and all matters pertaining to interstate commerce which it desires; Clause 3 only permits the Congress to keep commerce regular, meaning free from undue and unwarranted interruptions in the free flow of commerce. In fact, the federal government itself has usually been the major cause of that interruption; either through intervening in commercial affairs which pertain to solely the state itself and nobody else, or through refusing to crack down on states that give their businesses unfair advantages. by taxing their residents to subsidize their own in-state domestic commerce (and labor, jobs, and production) over the commerce of other states. This  allows a states to ignore the need to maintain America's interstate free trade compact, for the purpose of giving the state permanent rewards in the market, and increasing monopolization of the industries within it.
     The Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to allow the federal government to do whatever it wanted to do. Its purpose is do authorize the federal government to do what is necessary and proper to execute "the foregoing powers", meaning the powers previously listed in Clauses 1 through 17. Clauses 17 and 18 don't say the federal government can take over whatever lands and buildings it needs in order to do whatever it wants; they say that the federal government only has exclusive jurisdiction over a territory less than 100 miles square, that it must purchase whatever lands it owns (and Amendment V says it must compensate owners fairly), and that the government should use whatever resources it requires, only to execute the powers vested in it under Clauses 1 through 17.

     This may be a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, but it is probably a correct one. [Note: Admittedly, I have neglected to mention several important duties of Congress which are distinct from the "4 M's, 3 T's, and 2 P's" listed below; such as trying cases of treason, trying impeachments, admitting new states to the union, and establishing election days. It is worthwhile to note that the Enumerated Powers authorize Congress to do closer to thirty-five things, rather than 17 or 18.]. This narrow interpretation of the Constitution may not "allow the federal government to do much", but that is the point.
     We have an amendment process for a reason; so that we can change the Constitution easily, but not too easily. We are not supposed to change the Constitution for "light and transient causes". It is no use begging for a vote on an unconstitutional matter, or spending a decade and trillions of dollars on unconstitutional legislation, when those efforts will eventually and inevitably be overturned by courts, vetoed by governors, or ignored by presidents.
     Strictly limiting Congress is the only way to prevent new departments from being ushered into existence in the federal government, where they can easily be taken advantage of, and perverted away from their original intentions, by administrations that either don't think the federal government should be involved in such matters, or (worse yet) by administrations that have an active disregard for the harmful activity that the department is supposed to be regulating. The George W. Bush Administration's, and Donald Trump Administration's, actions, concerning the Environmental Protection Agency, perhaps demonstrate this idea best.

     The fact that an issue or power is specifically listed in one of the clauses in Article I, Section 8, does not necessarily mean that the federal government is authorized to wield an exclusive monopoly over providing the service in question, nor does it necessarily mean that the federal government is authorized to legislate concerning any and all topics vaguely related to that issue.
     The states and the people, in most or all cases (save for the specific mention of exclusive jurisdiction over federal lands in Clause 17), still retain authority to legislate concerning the parts of the issues mentioned which are not specifically described in the language of the law.

     For example, the authority to "establish Post Roads" does not, by itself, confer a legal monopoly over the delivery of postal mail; a later Supreme Court decision did that. Also, the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" is arguably the Congress's only immigration-related power. It doesn't specifically say in the Constitution that the federal government has the right to decide where immigrants settle, nor whether they can be eligible for social services.

     The federal government will not have those authorities until the amendment process is utilized, to properly authorize the government to do such things.

     Even though the set of issues which the Congress can regulate, is narrow, there is still a total of seventeen separate clauses which explain what the Congress is allowed to do. Since it can be difficult to remember all seventeen clauses, here are my suggestions about what I think is the best way to memorize and simplify those seventeen things.

     When attempting to teach or memorize the Enumerated Powers, I suggest that the clauses be separated into three main categories: 1) Topics beginning with the letter M; 2) topics beginning with the letter T; and 3) topics beginning with the letter P (and, additionally, a fourth category, consisting of the final two clauses).

     In teaching the Enumerated Powers in this manner, the contents of the first sixteen clauses should be referred to as "the four M's, the three T's, and the two P's":

The Four M's:
     Military, Money, Mail, and Migration

- Clauses 11 through 16: the Military

- Clauses 5 and 6: Money

- Clause 7: Mail (post roads)

- Clause 4: Migration (uniform rule of naturalization)



The Three T's:
     Taxes, Tribes & Trade, and Tribunals

- Clauses 1 and 2: Taxes (and borrowing)

- Clause 3: Tribes & Trade (and commerce)

- Clause 9: Tribunals (and courts)



The Two P's:
     Patents and Piracies

- Clause 8: Patents (arts and science)

- Clause 10: Piracies (and felonies)



Other Clauses:

- Clause 17: Authority over lands purchased by government

- Clause 18: Enabling Clause / Necessary and Proper Clause




Read more about the Enumerated Powers of Congress
     http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/
     http://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-1-the-legislative-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/

Written on February 27th and 28th, 2020

Published on February 28th, 2020

Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House: Congressional Press Release (Extended Version)

Table of Contents

1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat

2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities

3. Restoring Transparency to Government

4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt

5. Taxation
6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses

7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children

8. Reforming Ages of Consent

9. Health Policy and Abortion

10. Conclusion

Content

1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat

     On Monday, August 19^th, 2019, at the monthly meeting of the Libertarian Party of Lake County, local essayist and frequent candidate Joseph W. Kopsick announced his intention to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.

     Mr. Kopsick, 32, seeks the seat representing Illinois's 10^th Congressional District. Kopsick, a native of Lake Bluff and a current resident of Waukegan, will run as an independent write-in candidate, but is also considering seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party and other parties. Kopsick is an advocate of limited constitutional government, supports dealing with most issues on a local basis, and would aim to reduce the number of federal departments by between five and seven.

     Kopsick pledges to operate as a home style politician, focusing his campaign and office resources on Illinois's 10^th District. He would also support legislative efforts to impose term limits upon of the office of U.S. Representative, as well as to reduce the salary and benefits of that position. Kopsick intends these reforms as steps towards establishing a government in which all public service is done on a volunteer basis, and he hopes to author legislation which would allow recall elections for all officials in all jurisdictions.

     Joseph W. Kopsick attended Lake Bluff and Lake Forest public schools, and has lived in Lake County, Illinois his whole life, aside from a few years spent in Wisconsin and Oregon during his twenties. In 2009, Kopsick graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where he studied U.S. government, legal philosophy, political science, political theory, and other related topics. Kopsick lived in Portland, Oregon briefly from 2013 to 2015, where he conducted independent research on homelessness and independent business alliances affecting the area. Mr. Kopsick ran for U.S. House of Representatives three times previously; from Wisconsin's 2^nd District in 2012, Oregon's 3^rd District in 2014, and Illinois's 10^th District in 2016.

     Kopsick hopes to use his education in political theory and legal ethics – as well as his subsequent independent studies of alternative proposals for economic systems - to bring a fresh perspective to legislation. Kopsick hopes that this perspective will guide voters and legislators to support and author new legislative proposals which will help to achieve both freedom and equality for all those who reside in the United States.

2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities

     Kopsick describes himself as a political independent, an “open borders libertarian” who supports “minimal vetting” at the border, and a supporter of “markets, not capitalism”. He supports restoring freedom through reviving the 9^th Amendment (thus ending the government's monopoly to issue licenses and permits), and revoking the government's powers to create and insure corporations, and revoking its powers to subsidize businesses and pass legislation which favors them and insulates them from competition and legal responsibility.

     Kopsick supports the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and would consider replacing it with what he calls a “truly optional public option” such as “Medicare for All Who Want It” or “Medicare for All, but Opt Out”. Kopsick believes that the Republicans do have a viable health plan, but he would not support the “state lines plan” unless accompanied with additional reforms providing for tax relief and price relief.

     Kopsick is pro-choice - and supports keeping abortion legal, free, and safe – but he opposes funding abortion with taxpayer funds. Kopsick additionally supports prohibiting infanticide and third-term abortions, and hopes to reduce the number of abortions without resorting to any legislative means, besides those prohibitions, to do so. Kopsick opposes federal gun control; and supports strengthening the 2^nd Amendment, in a manner which empowers Americans to stay armed, while also taking steps toward abolishing draft registration and the Selective Service.

     Kopsick's top five most urgent legislative priorities are: 1) limiting and re-negotiating the power and scope of the federal government; 2) enacting serious budget solvency reforms while paying off the national debt; 3) reforming markets which Kopsick considers “rigged”, “unfree”, and plagued with monopolies and taxpayer-funded special privileges; 4) reforming schools, and child protection and custody laws, in a manner which keeps children safe while preparing them with the education and skills they will need for a technologically advanced economy; and 5) advocating for the increased taxation of unimproved land value (Land Value Taxation) by the most local agencies possible, while reducing taxes upon sources of revenue other than unimproved land value. Kopsick additionally supports replacing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) with "Community Land Trusts" in every community or county, in order to keep environmental issues as local as possible.

     Kopsick hopes to avoid having to overturn Citizens United, but supports numerous reforms to ballot access and the Electoral College which will give independents and third parties the assistance they need to compete fairly with established parties. Kopsick hopes that, by reducing the set of issues in which the federal government is involved, it will be unnecessary to overturn Citizens United, because money will leave politics as soon as lobbyists realize that elected officials are strictly prohibited from regulating industries which the lobbyists wish them to regulate in favor of the interests they represent.

     Kopsick believes he can reduce political strife and social conflict by focusing on “objectively desirable, popular reforms” which he says include limiting government, balancing budgets and restoring fiscal sanity, and ending business privileges which rig markets and stop customers from being able to make choices. Kopsick also considers election reform, infrastructure, and veterans' issues to be among the least divisive issues, which could potentially help unite the nation behind a clear set of principles regarding what the government is supposed to do for us.

3. Restoring Transparency to Government

     Kopsick supports making government more transparent, and more responsive to residents' demands of their various government agencies and contractors; but he also believes that government shouldn't do too much, and that the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Kopsick hopes to reconcile these opposing viewpoints by using the amendment process outlined in the Constitution, to “amend the Constitution constitutionally”.

     Kopsick's plan is to scale-back federal authorities widely considered legitimate (even though they aren't) while empowering the states or the people to take up as many of those same authorities as they wish. Kopsick believes that this framework will avoid growing government, and avoid growing it too quickly, as long as budgets are balanced, budget balancing measures and debt limits are strictly enforced, and federal vs. state powers are strictly delineated and separated. Kopsick supports numerous amendments which would limit the legislative and punitive powers, privileges from arrest, debt contracting powers, term limits, and judicial privileges, of government officials.

     Kopsick opposes numerous congressional procedural tricks which bypass traditional separation of powers, because they leave many modern programs without proper constitutional authorization. These procedural tricks, Kopsick says, include oversteps of presidential reorganizational authority to create new cabinet positions and departments and czars, line-item vetos, congress handing its powers over to the president, fast-track programs, and supercommittees.

     Kopsick warns that these procedural tricks and bypasses have been the cause of the vast majority of improper expansion of government over the past century, which is why he supports changing federal legislation through taking the 6 months to 7 years necessary to pass constitutional amendments instead.

4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt

     On the national debt: Kopsick supports enacting serious and comprehensive budgetary and taxation reforms which will commit the government to pay off the national debt within 23 years, thereby restoring faith in our creditors, and increasing the value of our bonds and our currency.

     Kopsick hopes that putting America on a path to fiscal solvency, and keeping the value of the dollar high, will help avoid the need to increase the federal minimum wage. Kopsick cautions voters that the minimum wage affects less people than we are often told it does, and believes that employees earning minimum wage should receive assistance through price relief and a decreased burden of taxation on ordinary earned income, rather than through government assistance. Kopsick supports reducing social safety net and welfare spending, but not before cutting military, energy, and other commercial and corporate subsidies.

     Kopsick observes that America outspends the next 19 countries combined on military, and so he believes that we cannot justify continuing such high rates of military spending as we are seeing now. Kopsick supports making as much military spending discretionary as possible, strictly prohibiting bills providing for military expenditures from lasting for more than two years. He also supports withdrawing all troops, American military contractors, and military bases from as many countries as possible – some 800 to 1000 military bases, and troops in roughly 150 countries – while restricting the distance from U.S. shores from which troops can stray during peacetime. In addition to these reforms to the military, Kopsick supports reforms which would “end Big Brother programs” (like domestic and foreign surveillance, use of drones without permission of the host country) and limit the use of military equipment by local police departments.

     Kopsick believes that these reforms – as well as devolving the entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) to the states – will help reduce the federal budget to $2 trillion. Kopsick aims to reduce overall federal spending from $4 trillion to $2 trillion as soon as possible, while continuing to collect $3 trillion in tax revenues annually, as the federal government is doing now. Kopsick says that the national debt can be paid off by requiring a trillion-dollar budget surplus as soon as the government's total budget and scope can be halved; and by “spending a trillion less than we take in each year, instead of spending a trillion more than we take in each year”, and doing it for 23 years in a row, while paying off our debtors with 100% of those funds.

5. Taxation

     On tariffs: Although Kopsick admits that tariffs are easy to justify constitutionally, he does not think they are economically productive, nor wise, because he observes that American domestic importers pay those tariffs, not foreign sellers (as we think they do). The costs of tariffs are absorbed by importers, but some costs are passed onto foreign sellers, as well as to domestic manufacturers who use imported products, and customers who buy finished products made from materials that originated in foreign countries. Kopsick believes that tariffs only help us “shoot ourselves in the foot”, increasing the costs of all goods in all countries affected. That's why Kopsick supports reducing tariffs to zero “without bullying other nations into lowering their tariffs first”.

     On other forms of taxes: Kopsick believes in taxing monopolies, corporate income, capital gains, inheritance, and sales of luxury items, before resorting to taxing ordinary items with sales taxes and tariffs, and before resorting to taxing income from wages. Kopsick believes that if local governments instituted Land Value Taxation (taxing unimproved land value, while refraining from taxing improvements upon land, such as buildings and labor), then more income tax and sales tax revenues would be available for progressively less local levels of government. Kopsick asserts that all government could potentially be funded through Land Value Taxation, observing that the total cost of all government in the United States is the same amount which modern students of Henry George (who originated Land Value Taxation) estimate could be collected by taxing “kept economic rents”.

6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses

     Kopsick believes that a U.S. representative should understand how the Constitution and free market systems are supposed to work, even if they aren't working properly anymore. Kopsick plans to support all measures which end the redistribution of revenues from the working poor to wealthy companies, while advocating for increased economic education in schools and among elected officials.

     Kopsick hopes to see more libertarians, and more students of economics, studying how diverse sets of economists and politicians predict technology will change the economy over the coming decades, and hopes to see more libertarians studying economic proposals such as Georgism and Mutualism.

     Kopsick has proposed numerous suggestions – related to land, housing, money, credit, markets, and automation – which he believes will result in drastically reduced prices for most items. This, coupled with tax relief, he says, will help the working poor, struggling families, and perpetually out-of-work people, afford their daily needs much more easily. Kopsick says this framework will help avoid the need to resort to untenable unconstitutional proposals and anti-free-market or anti-competitive legislation in order to solve the problem of people struggling to pay for their daily needs.

     Kopsick opposes increasing the minimum wage, but concern for the employability of the poor at high wages is one of the reasons why he takes that position. Instead of raising the minimum wage, Kopsick would help the poorest Americans by enacting proposals aiming to reduce the mistreatment of the poor and homeless by government agencies, businesses, and charity organizations; and by passing legislation prohibiting governments and border agents from interfering with mutual aid organizations, charities, and religious organizations providing food relief, medical treatment, or shelter to people in need (regardless of their citizenship status).

     Kopsick opposes taxpayer funding for immigrant welfare, except as necessary to keep detainees alive, healthy, and well-rested while in government custody. Kopsick says that establishing and providing a basic minimum of care will help reduce immigrants' need for government medical assistance. Kopsick hopes to limit government by allowing residents to opt-out of most or all government services, including immigrant welfare and abortion; so he would not seek to prohibit the provision of relief to immigrants (nor citizens) when the revenues in question are acquired through voluntary, consensual cooperative pooling of funds by willing participants. Kopsick says that one way to achieve this is to allow taxpayers to check-off government programs they wish to pay for, on their tax forms (or else by experimenting with such a system, until it can be determined whether citizens could responsibly control 100% of government spending).

     Kopsick additionally wishes to author a congressional resolution which would acknowledge that the 9^th Amendment implicitly recognizes certain freedoms which are necessary in order to survive (among them, the rights to work, eat, hunt, forage, and travel), and he hopes to see hitchhiking become legal in all U.S. states and territories. Kopsick believes that, by increasing our understanding of, and respect for, the 9^th Amendment, we can diminish the need for government monopolies on the issuing of licenses and permits.

     Kopsick hopes to repeal some of the federal laws which he feels unfairly turns our rights to work, form unions, prompt negotiation with management, and go on strike – and our right to “vote with our wallet” (that is, to practice ethical consumerism by boycotting companies we don't like) – into privileges which government can take away. If elected, Kopsick would author and propose legislation to “make boycotts fully legal”; Kopsick says this will require repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as well as abolishing all bailouts and subsidies, revoking government's ability to create new L.L.C.s, drastically reducing the duration of patent protections, and revoking other forms of taxpayer-funded supports and privileges for businesses which give them an unfair advantage in the market.

     Kopsick says these reforms will lead to a truly free market, wherein companies have to compete by providing better products and/or better prices, instead of relying on taxpayer funds to keep their businesses afloat. Kopsick hopes these reforms will lead to increased price competition, which he says allows supply and demand to meet naturally at an equilibrium price, allowing markets to clear. This is how, as Kopsick says, “free markets lead to free stuff”.

7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children

     Kopsick has released a comprehensive plan to reform public school policies, as well as other areas of law, in a manner which protects children's safety, while also preparing them with the skills and education they will need for the future. On higher education, Kopsick supports ending F.A.F.S.A. and Sallie Mae – while, if necessary, supporting a boycott of public universities and colleges, in order to reduce costs of tuition – alongside forgiveness of 100% of public university debt.

     Kopsick supports an “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution which precludes the federal government from intervening in matters related to education, health, welfare, labor, sponsorship of commerce, energy, land outside of the District of Columbia, and other policy areas not mentioned in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, without proper authorization via a constitutional amendment. As such, Kopsick supports ending the federal government's involvement in education, barring a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing it to exercise such authority, and barring the adoption of a set of reforms which Kopsick has recommended be immediately implemented in as many school districts as possible. He has said that he will comment on national issues upon which the federal government is not properly authorized to legislate, but only until the federal government is no longer involved in the issue at hand.

     On primary education, Kopsick opposes setting national education standards, and would urge states to set their own standards. Kopsick wants school tests to rely less on rote memorization and multiple-choice tests, and more on tests containing questions that require students to actually know the answer and understand the subject matter. Kopsick additionally supports increased civics and life skills education, and wants economics classes to teach about “post-scarcity economics” and economists' critiques of economies based on competition and currency. If elected to Congress, Kopsick hopes to propose and support legislative efforts to allow and encourage states to experiment with alternative economic proposals such as state public banks, universal basic income guarantees, social credit systems, local currencies and currencies backed by labor and natural resources, natural resource dividends, Land Value Taxation and split-rate taxation, and other proposals.

     Kopsick supports bringing auto shop classes, wood shop classes, and gun training courses to high schools, but only with waiver systems (signed by student and parents) protecting the school from liability, and only for juniors and seniors. Kopsick believes that public schools would work best if more high schools taught freshmen and sophomores on a campus separate from juniors and seniors. Kopsick says the benefits of such reforms include: 1) facilitating different sets of needs in regards to the parking of vehicles, 2) keeping children under 16 away from dangerous equipment in auto and wood shop classes, and 3) reducing the age range of students attending high school campuses from 6 (if you include skipped-forward and held-back students) to 3.

8. Reforming Ages of Consent

     Kopsick has published numerous proposals which would protect children, but do not pertain to education; such as proposals to investigate child trafficking by agencies of government, and in other industries such as sports and entertainment. Kopsick shares the Libertarian Party of Illinois's concern – and the concern of its last nominee for governor – that divorce laws, family court laws, and Social Security Title IV-D (child support) must be reformed, in order to prevent the unjust taking of children into government custody in divorce proceedings when no physical or sexual abuse has been alleged, and in order to prevent the unjust taking of biological children into custody on legal grounds which only intended to allow the taking into custody of adopted children.

     Kopsick would also aim to reduce the separation of families at the border, and thus reduce the chance for physical and sexual abuse of children while in government custody, by requiring border patrol officials to conduct minimally invasive visual assessments to determine whether migrants are kidnapping the children they're with. Kopsick also supports abolishing I.C.E., which has only existed for 16 years, and which Kopsick says should be considered legally inadmissible because it was “rushed through Congress under duress” during the wave of post-9/11 hysteria.

     Kopsick subscribes to the “Non-Aggression Principle”, the idea that disputes and conflicts ought to be resolved without violence if at all possible. A libertarian, Kopsick believes that not only does government resort to violence all too often to enforce its order, but also that the very concept of the state is intrinsically predicated upon the idea that legalized violence, violent enforcement, territorialism, and monopolizing resources. Kopsick believes that government, society, and the economy should run on the concepts of voluntary participation in contracts and government programs, reciprocity, mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, and assurances that people will follow through on their promises and contracts.

     Kopsick says that, although the Enumerated Powers don't formally authorize the federal government to set ages of consent, such laws can and should be implemented properly via the amendment process, because a more or less uniform set of ages of consent is necessary; not only to establish a vague age required for marriage and contracts, etc., but also to reduce the likelihood that children will be trafficked across state lines for various purposes related to those limitations.

     As such, Kopsick would author legislation providing for formal constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in such policy areas – if necessary, calling for a constitutional convention, calling the states together to establish a uniform set of laws on these issues (but only as long as such a convention can be held without risking civil liberties being negotiated away).

     Kopsick hopes to offer guidance to help the federal and state governments establish more uniform sets of laws pertaining to ages of consent for various activities (including a ban, in all states, on child marriage for minors under 16). Kopsick wants to increase the federal age of consent from 12 to 15 or 16, while narrowing the age differences prescribed in state “Romeo and Juliet” laws to within two years, in a manner which will stop the fact of federal jurisdiction from preventing states from prosecuting interstate child trafficking when the federal government will not do so.

     According to Kopsick, all of these reforms - to ages of consent, schools, and other issues – will result in significantly increased rates of prosecution for child trafficking, and for molestation while in school and government custody.

     Kopsick notes that, while the State of Illinois is increasing the age of tobacco purchase, it is lowering the age a child has to be in order to be left at home unsupervised. Kopsick says this doesn't make sense, and supports authorizing the federal government – through a proper constitutional amendment - to prohibit states from setting most ages of consent (for voting, contracts, marriage, sex, tobacco, etc.) lower than 16 or higher than 18, while prohibiting states from setting the age of alcohol purchase lower than 18 or higher than 21. Kopsick supports allowing minors as young as 14 to drive, provided that they learn to drive outside of public school. Kopsick wants to see twenty-five more states legalize voting by 17-year-olds in primaries, as long as they will turn 18 by Election Day.

     On other electoral issues: Observing that many states allow 18-year-olds to serve as mayors and governors, Kopsick would urge states to lower the age at which officials can be elected or appointed, to 18. Kopsick has proposed numerous other reforms to elections, including allowing states to continue to have radically different laws concerning how their Electoral College votes will be allocated (or, if that is untenable, then reforming the Electoral College and the Congress by getting rid of the Senate and electing the president through the popular vote). Kopsick also supports increased ballot access for third parties; including equal signature collection requirements for all parties, “jungle primaries”, and ranked-choice voting.

9. Health Policy and Abortion

     Although Kopsick opposes federal involvement in health care and health insurance policy without a constitutional amendment, Kopsick believes that a “Medicare for All” -type program could be maximally economically efficient (as long as no money is lost to bureaucracies and politicians), while a “Medicare for All Who Want It”, “Medicare for All, But Opt Out” or “public option” type system would help preserve choice better than Medicare for All would.

     Instead of authorizing the federal government to negotiate on drug prices, Kopsick would strike at the root of the problem; by ending medical companies' monopolies, subsidies, and special privileges. Kopsick supports applying his “free markets lead to free stuff” idea to health care, achieving price relief on health items by reducing the lifespan of pharmaceutical patents and medical devices, while giving non-profit health organizations tax-free status, and giving medical professionals tax write-offs to provide free care.

     Kopsick believes that a low-tax, non-profit environment – along with voluntary participation in government health programs, in a free interstate market for health insurance – will help reduce the prices of health goods and services, while unleashing a torrent of innovation in regards to new research and development into new medical technologies. Kopsick supports using free enterprise and strictly limited intellectual property protections to encourage innovation, rather than investing taxpayer funds into R&D.

     On abortion, Kopsick is pro-choice, but with exceptions; his platform includes a proposal reading “Allow abortion, but don't subsidize it”. Kopsick opposes the expenditure of taxpayer funds on abortion and organizations providing abortion, whenever those funds are collected without the consent of the individual taxpayer. Kopsick would author legislation providing for the punishment of medical professionals who allow babies to die after being born alive as the result of failed abortions, and who commit infanticide while calling it late-term abortion.

     Kopsick believes that Roe v. Wade has been as destructive as it has been helpful, in regards to ensuring access to abortion. Kopsick supports prohibiting abortion in the third trimester, but requiring all states to allow people to pay for abortions as they please, without the help of involuntary taxpayer funding, and allowing free legal access to abortion services in the first and second trimester so as to avoid any need for late-term abortion.

     Kopsick believes that keeping abortion free, but unsupported by taxpayer funds, will help reduce a lot of the moral and social differences in our society. Kopsick says that by aiming to reduce abortions – without supporting prohibitions on abortions before the third trimester – and believes that, by keeping access to contraception, adoption services, and surrogacy (as well as allowing research into womb transplants), the demand for abortion can be drastically reduced, without the need for government intervention.

10. Conclusion

     Kopsick currently works as a private security officer at various locations throughout Lake County. In his spare time, he enjoys playing guitar and piano, making mashup music, and drawing.

     Kopsick manages a blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, which can be found at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. Kopsick plans to launch an official personal website, featuring a section on campaigns. Voters can read his platform by visiting that blog, and reading Kopsick's August 2019 articles “Reform or Abolition: Thirty-Point Basic Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020” and “Expanded Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”.

     The election for U.S. Representative from Illinois's 10th District will be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, the same day as the election for president and vice president of the United States.

     In addition to Mr. Kopsick, who filed as an independent, three other candidates have filed to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10^th District; the incumbent Democrat, another Democrat, and a Republican.

Written on August 25th, 2019

Published on August 25th, 2019

Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019

Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House: Congressional Press Release (Abbreviated Version)

*** MEDIA ALERT ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                  Contact: JOSEPH W. KOPSICK
August 28^th, 2019                                           608-417-9395 / jwkopsick@gmail.com

Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House

Lake Bluff Native Joe Kopsick Seeks 10^th District Office

     LIBERTYVILLE, ILLINOIS - On Monday, August 19^th, 2019, at the monthly meeting of the Libertarian Party of Lake County, local essayist and frequent candidate Joseph W. Kopsick announced his intention to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.

     Mr. Kopsick, 32, seeks the seat representing Illinois's 10^th Congressional District. Kopsick, a native of Lake Bluff and a current resident of Waukegan, will run as an independent write-in candidate, but is also considering seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party and other parties. Kopsick is an advocate of limited constitutional government, supports dealing with most issues on a local basis, and would aim to reduce the number of federal departments by between five and seven.

     Kopsick pledges to operate as a home style politician, focusing his campaign and office resources on Illinois's 10^th District. He would also support legislative efforts to impose term limits upon of the office of U.S. Representative, as well as to reduce the salary and benefits of that position. Kopsick intends these reforms as steps towards establishing a government in which all public service is done on a volunteer basis, and he hopes to author legislation which would allow recall elections for all officials in all jurisdictions.

     Joseph W. Kopsick attended Lake Bluff and Lake Forest public schools, and has lived in Lake County, Illinois his whole life, aside from a few years spent in Wisconsin and Oregon during his twenties. In 2009, Kopsick graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where he studied U.S. government, legal philosophy, political science, political theory, and other related topics. Kopsick lived in Portland, Oregon briefly from 2013 to 2015, where he conducted independent research on homelessness and independent business alliances affecting the area. Mr. Kopsick ran for U.S. House of Representatives three times previously; from Wisconsin's 2^nd District in 2012, Oregon's 3^rd District in 2014, and Illinois's 10^th District in 2016.

     Kopsick hopes to use his education in political theory and legal ethics – as well as his subsequent independent studies of alternative proposals for economic systems - to bring a fresh perspective to legislation. Kopsick hopes that this perspective will guide voters and legislators to support and author new legislative proposals which will help to achieve both freedom and equality for all those who reside in the United States.

     Kopsick describes himself as a political independent, an “open borders libertarian” who supports “minimal vetting” at the border, and a supporter of “markets, not capitalism”. He supports restoring freedom through reviving the 9^th Amendment (thus ending the government's monopoly to issue licenses and permits), and revoking the government's powers to create and insure corporations, and revoking its powers to subsidize businesses and pass legislation which favors them and insulates them from competition and legal responsibility.

     Kopsick supports the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and would consider replacing it with what he calls a “truly optional public option” such as “Medicare for All Who Want It” or “Medicare for All, but Opt Out”. Kopsick believes that the Republicans do have a viable health plan, but he would not support the “state lines plan” unless accompanied with additional reforms providing for tax relief and price relief.

     Kopsick is pro-choice - and supports keeping abortion legal, free, and safe – but he opposes funding abortion with taxpayer funds. Kopsick additionally supports prohibiting infanticide and third-term abortions, and hopes to reduce the number of abortions without resorting to any legislative means, besides those prohibitions, to do so. Kopsick opposes federal gun control; and supports strengthening the 2^nd Amendment, in a manner which empowers Americans to stay armed, while also taking steps toward abolishing draft registration and the Selective Service.

     Kopsick's top five most urgent legislative priorities are: 1) limiting and re-negotiating the power and scope of the federal government; 2) enacting serious budget solvency reforms while paying off the national debt; 3) reforming markets which Kopsick considers “rigged”, “unfree”, and plagued with monopolies and taxpayer-funded special privileges; 4) reforming schools, and child protection and custody laws, in a manner which keeps children safe while preparing them with the education and skills they will need for a technologically advanced economy; and 5) advocating for the increased taxation of unimproved land value (Land Value Taxation) by the most local agencies possible, while reducing taxes upon sources of revenue other than unimproved land value. Kopsick additionally supports replacing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) with "Community Land Trusts" in every community or county, in order to keep environmental issues as local as possible.

     Kopsick hopes to avoid having to overturn Citizens United, but supports numerous reforms to ballot access and the Electoral College which will give independents and third parties the assistance they need to compete fairly with established parties. Kopsick hopes that, by reducing the set of issues in which the federal government is involved, it will be unnecessary to overturn Citizens United, because money will leave politics as soon as lobbyists realize that elected officials are strictly prohibited from regulating industries which the lobbyists wish them to regulate in favor of the interests they represent.

     Kopsick believes he can reduce political strife and social conflict by focusing on “objectively desirable, popular reforms” which he says include limiting government, balancing budgets and restoring fiscal sanity, and ending business privileges which rig markets and stop customers from being able to make choices. Kopsick also considers election reform, infrastructure, and veterans' issues to be among the least divisive issues, which could potentially help unite the nation behind a clear set of principles regarding what the government is supposed to do for us.

     Kopsick currently works as a private security officer at various locations throughout Lake County. In his spare time, he enjoys playing guitar and piano, making mashup music, and drawing.
     Kopsick manages a blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, which can be found at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. Kopsick plans to launch an official personal website, featuring a section on campaigns. Voters can read his platform by visiting that blog, and reading Kopsick's August 2019 articles “Reform or Abolition: Thirty-Point Basic Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020” and “Expanded Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”.

     The election for U.S. Representative from Illinois's 10^th District will be held on Tuesday, November 3^rd, 2020, the same day as the election for president and vice president of the United States.

     In addition to Mr. Kopsick, who filed as an independent, three other candidates have filed to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10^th District; the incumbent Democrat, another Democrat, and a Republican.

Written on August 25th, 2019

Published on August 25th, 2019
Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019

How to Simplify and Streamline the United States Code

     The following is a set of recommendations regarding how to best reorganize the U.S. Code. The U.S. Code currently contains 48 titles; Title 6 and Title 34 have been removed and are no longer active. A list of the sections of the U.S. Code is available at the following link: http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

     I have made these recommendations as a way to: 1) decrease the number of titles in the Code; 2) simplify the law in general; 3) remove eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus transferring those duties to the states or to the people, and restoring the set of federal powers to within (or closer to) the confines established in the Enumerated Powers; 4) re-organize the Code in a manner which flows more logically; and 5) re-structure the Code in a way that reflects the order of federal authorities listed in the Enumerated Powers, in the order in which they appear.

     My hope is that these recommendations could help guide federal legislative policy, going forward, regarding the continuation of a federal government power shrinking policy. For example, if ever a law were to be passed which would provide that all proposed federal laws must contain a specific explanation of why they are constitutional – which I hope would include which passage in the Constitution authorizes federal power in that policy area – then I hope that the following recommendations help set up the order in which federal authorities appear in the Enumerated Powers as a sort of “backbone” upon which a new re-ordering of the titles of the U.S. Code can be built.

     From that point, those seeking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, should compare the Enumerated Powers (and the main enabling powers in the Constitution) side by side with the list of 30 titles found at the end of this article, determine whether the Enumerated Powers justify the exercise of federal power in those policy areas, and use their findings to determine which fields of federal purview should be eliminated next. My first recommendation would be to look at which powers the government has under “public health” (in Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare), since health is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but welfare is.
     Next, I would recommend examining which types of laws on "Transportation" (if any) are specifically authorized under the only presumable clause which could possibly authorize federal involvement in transportation; namely, the clause authorizing the establishment of Post Roads (Clause 7 of the Enumerated Powers). And so on, should that idea and method be applied, to the other titles, until the contents of the U.S. Code reflect only those federal powers which were specifically authorized in the U.S. Constitution. I would suggest that the title on "Labor" be reviewed before it is removed, so that whichever portions of that title pertain to labor by federal workers can be retained (and, I would suggest, incorporated into Title 8 (Government Organization and Employees) and/or Title 9 (Public Contracts).

     I also hope that this article will help educate the populace as to precisely where in our immense federal code of law, some of the laws we like and don't like, can be found. If the following 31 proposals can ever be passed into law, then I hope that that popular education will become even easier, given the new simplification and streamlining of the Code which I have proposed.
     Here are my proposals about how to reform the order of titles in the U.S. Code:

Proposal #1. Keep Title 1 where it is.
Proposal #2. Make Title 4 into Title 2.
Proposal #3. Make Title 36 into Title 3.
Proposal #4. Make Title 2 into Title 4.
Proposal #5. Make Title 3 into Title 5.
Proposal #6. Make Title 28 into Title 6.
Proposal #7. Make Title 9 into Title 7.
Proposal #8. Make Title 5 into Title 8.
Proposal #9. Make Title 41 into Title 9. Proposal #10. Make Title 13 into Title 10. Proposal #11. Make Title 42 into Title 11. Proposal #12. Make Title 26 into Title 12.
Proposal #13. Make Title 19 into Title 13.
Proposal #14. Combine Titles 11 and 12 into a single title; Title 14.
Proposal #15. Make Title 15 into Title 15.
Proposal #16. Make Title 22 into Title 16.
Proposal #17. Make Title 25 into Title 17.
Proposal #18. Make Title 31 into Title 18.
Proposal #19. Make Title 39 into Title 19.
Proposal #20. Make Title 23 into Title 20. Proposal #21. Make Title 49 into Title 21. Proposal #22. Combine Titles 17 and 35 into a single title; Title 22.
Proposal #23. Make Title 18 into Title 23.
Proposal #24. Make Title 10 into Title 24.
Proposal #25. Make Title 14 into Title 25.
Proposal #26. Make Title 32 into Title 26.
Proposal #27. Make Title 33 into Title 27.
Proposal #28. Combine Titles 37 and 38 into a single title; Title 28.
Proposal #29. Make Title 40 into Title 29.
Proposal #30. Make Title 43 into Title 30. 
Proposal #31. Eliminate Titles 16, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 45, and 47.

     Proposal #31 would eliminate eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus “devolving” (or returning) those policy areas to the states or to the people, where they rightfully belong.

     Those policy areas are, respectively: Conservation (Title 16), Education (Title 20), Food and Drugs (Title 21), Hospitals and Asylums (Title 24), Labor (Title 29), Mineral Lands and Mining (Title 30), Railroads (Title 25). and Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs (Title 47).

     Proposals #1-30 would cause the now 50- (or 48-) title U.S. Code to have only 30 titles, causing the list of titles to appear the way it does below:

(Arguably Authorized Under Various Basic Enabling Clauses of Government)

     Title 1. General Provisions
     Title 2. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
     Title 3. Patriotic Societies and Observances
     Title 4. The Congress
     Title 5. The President
     Title 6. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
     Title 7. Arbitration
     Title 8. Government Organization and Employees
     Title 9. Public Contracts
     Title 10. Census

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-3)
     Title 11. The Public Health and Welfare
     Title 12. Internal Revenue Code
     Title 13. Customs Duties
     Title 14. Bankruptcy, Banks, and Banking
     Title 15. Commerce and Trade
     Title 16. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
     Title 17. Indians
     Title 18. Money and Finance

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7)
     Title 19. Postal Service
     Title 20. Highways
     Title 21. Transportation

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8)
     Title 22. Copyrights and Patents

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 10)
     Title 23. Crimes and Criminal Procedures

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clauses 11 through 16)
     Title 24. Armed Forces
     Title 25. Coast Guard
     Title 26. National Guard
     Title 27. Navigation and Navigable Waters
     Title 28. Pay and Allowances of Uniformed Services, and Veterans' Benefits

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 17)
     Title 29. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
     Title 30. Public Lands

Written on August 18^th, 2019
Originally Published on August 18^th, 2019
Edited on August 18th and 19th, 2019