It's impossible to overstate just how bad Kamala Harris' economic proposals are. Every single policy utterance she makes would result in more debt, more inflation, and more suffering; there are no positives about anything she proposes; not even one. Even people on the left are coming right out and admitting, in effect, that the vice president has no idea what she's talking about.
She's pandering, of course. That's one of the few things she does well. But there can be no mistaking her intention; should she be in a position to do so, she will cheerfully implement as much of this horse squeeze as she can get away with, as quickly as she can get away with it. Much like her erstwhile boss and his student loan payoff mess, she will not worry herself over the constitutionality of her actions; by the time any court can rule, the damage will already be done.
And that damage could result in the shutdown of much of the republic's economy.
A former White House economist is sounding the alarm on Vice President Kamala Harris' economic agenda after former President Trump warned the U.S. would suffer a "1929-style depression" under a Harris presidency.
"My guess is that a lot of the things she said in the past about what she really wants to do, like the Green New Deal, for example… getting carbon-neutral by 2030 – all that kind of stuff would cause a deep recession toward carbon," Kevin Hassett told "The Big Money Show" Thursday.
"Carbon-neutral by 2030 is almost impossible. 75% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. So how are they going to do that if they try it? That you're just going to have to shut down the economy?"
While there has been a lot of discussion on the many and varied ways her economic proposals would be, well, disastrous, there are other arguments that must also be made.
See Related: HOT TAKES: Roseanne Barr Helps Ratio Stephanie Ruhle's Ridiculous Defense of Kamala Harris
Those other arguments are centered on the ultimate law of the land: The Constitution. In short, everything Kamala Harris proposes, she simply would not have the power to do under the Constitution. The last item in the Bill of Rights is the 10th Amendment, which places one big roadblock on the federal government:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's a very plain, simple statement. In effect: "If the Constitution does not specifically allow for the federal government to take an action, it is prohibited from doing so." In other words, everything not mandated is illegal. And, yes, I know that the federal government has been roundly ignoring this injunction since about 1860, at least, but that doesn't mean someone (President Trump, are you reading this?) shouldn't pin Kamala Harris down with this argument.
Article II of the Constitution describes the Executive Branch; how the president is elected, and the president's powers and responsibilities. Nothing in that article grants the executive any power over commerce. A plain reading of the Constitution, by anyone with enough smarts to pound sand, makes one thing abundantly clear: Were she elected president, the Constitution flatly forbids Kamala Harris from any of the actions she describes. So not only are her economic proposals harmful - they are also illegal. Price controls, rent controls, handouts to first-time home buyers - all illegal.
None of this, of course, means that she wouldn't go ahead if she wins the election. The precedent is set; President Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness plan is unconstitutional, and the administration as good as admitted it was, but they went ahead anyway, knowing that by the time courts could rule, the damage would already be done.
See Related: OPINION: The Department of Education Just Said What in an Official Email to All Student Loan Holders?
Another Blow to Joe: Appeals Court Blocks Biden Student Loan Plan
Kamala Harris would certainly implement as much of her idiotic economic schemes by executive fiat as she thinks she can get away with it, and she will dare the courts to do anything about it. They will, but by that point, again, the damage will be done. While, yes, the Trump/Vance campaign should and no doubt will deconstruct the Harris/Walz camp's horrible economic proposals, they should not neglect the constitutional arguments as well.
The 10th Amendment has been ignored for too long. The federal colossus has grown leaps and bounds beyond its authorized size under the Constitution. It may be a lost cause, advocating for a return of this imperial colossus to its constitutional bounds, but I'll keep making the argument anyway. It's an argument that must be made, it must be applied to both sides in any debate. Besides, the world has no shortage of windmills to tilt at.
