Imgflip Logo Icon

Best Government, is small Government

Best Government, is small Government | I DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THE GOVERNMENT, RATHER, I WANT TO SHRINK IT BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL SIZE. | image tagged in government,liberty,tyranny,coronavirus,covid-19,constitution,ConservativeMemes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
3,213 views 84 upvotes Made by Brujo-13bx 5 years ago in politics
66 Comments
7 ups, 5y
Drake Hotline Bling Meme | King-sized government Constitution-sized government | image tagged in memes,drake hotline bling | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
5 ups, 5y
Amen to that!
0 ups, 5y
This meme is so popular and the trolls are jealous, so not going to bother replying much. lol
0 ups, 5y,
2 replies
There was a limit on the size of government in the constitution? Perhaps the growth of government is reflective of the growth of our population? Or would you prefer the many to be governed by even fewer. Perhaps a monarchy? Wait no... because that's something the constitution specifically says we cannot do.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Constitution 101... The Federal Government has NO POWER...

EXCEPT what the States agree to give to it. No more. No less. The STATES have all the power except what they collectively decide to cede to the Federal Government.

Period. End of discussion.
0 ups, 5y,
4 replies
So states can bring back slavery? I think not. lol
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
You are so adorable! Give me an instance in the constitution where it supports slavery. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
0 ups, 5y
I never said slavery was supported by the constitution. But being that the 13th Amendment is against it, the federal government should step in when constitutional rights are violated. For again, no state has a 10th Amendment right to violate the other Amendments in the bill of rights.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
You say that like ALL the states wanted slavery
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
No, its just that I know that states don't have a 10th Amendment right to deny us of our other rights. Like other Amendments such as 13th. If you ask me, what is most important, state/federal? My answer would be the individual. No state nor federal has a right over the sovereignty of the individual, so long as we are not violating the rights of other individuals. We are free individuals.
0 ups, 5y
That's a good argument
0 ups, 5y
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y
You got one thing right. You clearly think not.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Ummm, I don't think you're quite understanding. The government has created so programs that it has so business sponsoring. It's become large and bloated and is intruding in areas of our lives that it shouldn't be
0 ups, 5y,
2 replies
Like trying to stop women from having abortions?
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y
Like having an opinion on abortion. That is a state question (until the SC imagined there was a "right to privacy" in their unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade decision. Each state should decide.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
No, like funding them
2 ups, 5y,
2 replies
Did the government pay for your abortion and force you to get it?
5 ups, 5y,
1 reply
3 ups, 5y,
2 replies
I wonder how many pennies you personally have contribute to abortion through your taxes.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Well Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and they are one of the largest recipients of Government funding which comes from tax dollars.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
one of the largest recipients of governments funding?!? I think not lmao
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
On a relative basis, revenue to funding, they are. Government funding accounted for than 1/3 of their total revenues.
0 ups, 5y
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

They're funded by a mix of public/private funds and revenue generation. Not unusual for healthcare providers.

PP provides services other than abortion as well -- most of what they do is STD screening and contraception.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y
One penny is too many.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Hm?
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
I was just wondering how that was intruding on your life. You must have some personal experience.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Oh, no. I'm just saying tax dollars shouldn't go to that. If we treat it as any other health issue and overlook the moral wrongness, it's still not something the government should fund, it's not like they pay any of your other hospital bills
1 up, 5y
This I agree with, somewhat. However, legally, most of the federal funding doesn't go directly to abortions but instead funds other medical services and necessities provided by Planned Parenthood. At least, by law that is what they should be doing but it's easy to argue that any funding for other services can allow other funding to be reallocated for abortions. So while you, yourself, do not pay for abortions, your tax money is going to an organization that does them.

Loopholes are always going to be a thing in government so long as it's run by lawyers, and the people in business always make profit off of loopholes because that's how capitalism works.
0 ups, 5y
Upvote!
0 ups, 5y
Respect
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
What functions of our government (federal or state) do you believe are unconstitutional, and on what basis?
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
The Sullivan-Act in NYC, look it up, it violates our 2nd Amendment. So states do not have a 10th Amendment right to violate our 2nd Amendment right. Proving the feds are inept do nothings.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
"In the case Kachalsky v. Cacace (2012), a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Sullivan Act, and rejected challengers' positions that New York state handgun law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

So, yeah. The Second Circuit unanimously rejected your argument.

Also, this is a New York State law: not sure what "the feds" you're talking about had to do with this.
0 ups, 5y
If you look deeper, you'll see that the purpose of the law, was to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and Italians. That is, the law is racist as well as violates peoples 2nd Amendment. As for feds, they are no different than Trump and democrats who are inept, and do nothing about unconstitutional racist Acts such as this one. I don't give two flying farts about a 2nd Circuit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, you have a right to bear arms unless a 2nd Circuit says you don't. HELLO?
0 ups, 5y
basically shrinking it back to size before wilson was president
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
back when slavery was a thing, and women had no vote.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
2 replies
1 up, 5y
your understanding of history and woman's suffrage is like your understanding of everything else.

completely wrong.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y
You literally made up a false narrative where women chose not to have the vote, blacks chose to be slaves, etc.

Please f**king drop dead.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
how'd Trump do so far in that effort?
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
He didn't, he's to blame, along with democrats and the news. Its all one entity.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
How are the news to blame for the expansion of government, the debt and deficit?
(I'll concede to the Democrats since they like to spend money as much as the Republicans)
0 ups, 5y
They're guilty of propaganda that lead to the panic, and republicans/democrats are the same.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
"I'd suggest that the "general police power" reserved under the Constitution to state and local governments allows for the imposition of quarantines in the interests of public health and safety."

The states power to police does not override the citizens fundamental rights. And this is why you see the memo from AG Barr to direct US Attorneys to monitor the stay at home orders from state and local Governments for Constitutional abuse.
2 ups, 5y,
3 replies
Of course.

And I'd agree that throwing people in jail if they violate quarantine is counter-productive at best, unconstitutional at worst. Fines are better, but still not ideal, seeing as many have been economically impacted.

At the end of the day, the best method isn't enforcement but voluntary compliance.

You don't get much voluntary compliance by running around calling it a New World Order plot against our freedoms and protesting the lockdowns without observing proper protocol, however.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Voluntary Compliance. LOL. If this pandemic was being handled by Voluntary Compliance, there would be way more deaths and cases. Some people just don't listen to orders. Oh wait, and liberals are saying Trump is making it worse. If a Democrat were in charge, we'd be doomed in this pandemic.
0 ups, 5y
If a Democrat were President right now, I think we'd have seen much larger conservative-led anti-quarantine demonstrations much earlier, even if the same sorts of actions were taken.
1 up, 5y,
2 replies
0 ups, 5y
Please....its always the least educated who leads with the quip "all people who don't agree with my views must be uneducated".
0 ups, 5y
Yeah, just like you gave up on your old username...
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Well, we can't stop people from saying what they want, even if you believe the language is conspiratorial and impacting voluntarism.

So in the end, the rights of the individual will supercede the reach of police power. Thank God.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
They can say what they want: provided they comply with the same sorts of "time, place, and manner" restrictions on free speech that have been held to be Constitutional during normal times.
1 up, 5y,
2 replies
LOL...this "saying fire in a theater" is not applicable.

People have the right to question the Government, even if done in a conspiratorial manner.

Dont waste my time with this.
0 ups, 5y
Yelling "Fire" in a theater is fully legal. Its the effects of you doing that (i.e. manslaughter, injury) that are illegal and will get you put in jail.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
They need to get permits if they want to hold large rallies, and local governments have the right to deny them in the interests of public safety, just like during normal times.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
I think you're talking about California and Newsom's recent directive to order the immediate denial of all permits?

This is now being challenged in court. So we will see just how much water your theory holds.
0 ups, 5y
Wasn't really talking about that -- I was talking about pre-covid laws, and that's something new. Sounds like states weighing in on matters typically left to local government. But if it's content-neutral, serves a significant interest, and leaves open alternative channels, the restrictions are in theory constitutional.

The inevitable challenge ensues. Does it hold water in court? We'll see.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
I put Corona and Covid, because a lot of people are affected by government's authoritarian policy that's not even based on real math and science, but a government controlled media that spews propaganda while government denies people their (constitutional) individual rights. Also, the whole thing is a farce, for individual states already violate our rights, take the Sullivan-Act for example, look that one up and ask why it still exist? So according to "police power" logic, it would be perfectly ok for the states to deny the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery. I should also point out, that its government's job to protect life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (autonomy) as an example. That is, its supposed to protect you from being killed by me, not protect you from yourself. The meme simply advocates that government stick to the constitution, which it hasn't, being that its constantly violating our rights. It doesn't matter if its federal or state, they shit on our rights. Apparently corruption can't be restrained.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
The only way to restrain corruption is to get moral people in government. Guess how we do that. Wells since morals in our culture originated from Christianity, we should spread Christianity. There is a direct correlation between the fall of Christianity and the rise of corruption.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Nah, Christianity is full of pedophiles, that didn't and won't work.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
No, the catholic church is full of pedophiles. Christianity is full of moral people. I'm not talking about organized religion.
0 ups, 5y
Well, you cannot push one religion as having a monopoly on morals. I know lots of Christian folks that are good moral people, but don't think your the only ones. There are pagans, Taoist and other religions that have good morals as well. So we cannot have one set religion. What we need is competition in private schooling, so parent can choose what religion if any. Problem solved.
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
  • Black Wallpaper.jpg
  • IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
    I DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THE GOVERNMENT, RATHER, I WANT TO SHRINK IT BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL SIZE.