August 16, 2025
A Progressive president sets tariff rates. He negotiates a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. He attacks in an undeclared war. When taking action would violate the letter or the principles of the Constitution, a Progressive takes action autonomously.
A Progressive president keeps executing unconstitutional statutes and regulations. Whenever a judge opines that the president shouldn't execute a statute that the president interprets correctly is constitutional, the president doesn't execute the statute and instead executes the judge's opinion. When exercising restraint would violate the Constitution, a Progressive exercises restraint.
Constitutionalist Restraint-on Tariffs, Treaties, and War
Tariff-setting is legislative power. Tariffs raise revenue, so tariffs must be originated in the current house of representatives.
If a constitutionalist president is unconstitutionally delegated the legislative power that's vested in congressmen, he will refuse to use that power. Instead, he will recommend necessary and expedient measures to congressmen's consideration.
Treaties are law. Constitutionalist legislators in senates would pass treaties, and constitutionalist presidents would then sign treaties-if treaties would ever be advisable.
But treaties don't, and can't, force government people to comply. Treaties really just give politicians rationalizations for doing whatever they would do anyway.
Military treaties unconstitutionally bypass congressmen's duties to pass rules-of-engagement cards (ROE cards) and decide whether to declare war. Trade treaties in practice unwisely restrict trade in order to help cronies-blocking voluntary transactions that would otherwise benefit free producers and customers.
In place of a military treaty that would require agreement and yet that neither government's people could be trusted to follow, there's a promising alternative: Unilaterally enact a law establishing upfront that other governments' military actions will at minimum be met by our government implementing a significant initial response; and keep this law in place and enforce it.
For instance, our government people can enact a law consisting of rules that prohibit unconventional-warfare actions (which we already know that Chinese government people are taking), given force by a sanction that if any of these rules is violated, all trade of our people with the offending government's people will be ended until all violations have clearly ended. This way, trade with our people wouldn't build up a proven enemy government.
In place of a trade treaty that would just build up governments and help cronies, there's another promising alternative: Unilaterally levy tariffs equal to half the tariffs that other nations' government people levy on each specific category of products. Half-tariffs would incentivize other nations' people to oppose those nations' cronies who are being propped up at the expense of those nations' people. Political opposition would build up that would provide the best chance of getting each tariff first reduced and ultimately eliminated.
War drastically changes the legal regime controlling how persons are deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Since war moves the legal regime onto new ground in which many life-and-death rules suddenly aren't intuitive, it's essential to establish what wartime actions will be legal. These new legal rules must be immediately clear in split-seconds in battle. They must be drafted as ROE cards and passed by congressmen.
Also, each war must be decided on by congressmen.
Further, when enemy government people make our government people unable to protect our rights without us being forced into the drastic legal regime of war, our government people's only approach that is moral is to directly target those enemy government people, and to keep this up until those people and any like-minded successors can no longer force us into war.
It's immoral, and it's also unconstitutional, for our government people to support war with attacks, other direct military support, economic support, or other nominally humanitarian support when congressmen haven't done their due diligence of passing ROE cards and declaring war.
It's also unwise. People who have freer governments are able to outproduce people who have more-coercive governments. The longer that we keep ourselves in peace, the more that our people will outproduce potential enemy governments' more-coerced people, and the more the more-coercive enemy government people will be at risk if they would start a war with us. Even when mass murderers have possessed weapons of mass destruction, they haven't used those weapons if doing that would be suicide.
Superior economic strength will ultimately prevent major wars and keep the peace. Getting there by sustaining peace whenever we can will more-quickly bring more peace and more freedom.
Constitutionalist Action-on Statutes, Regulations, and Opinions
All officials take oaths that they can only uphold if they interpret the constitutionality of every possible action and only take actions that they correctly interpret are constitutional.
A constitutionalist president will choose to not execute statutes that are unconstitutional-and most statutes are.
He will choose to not execute any regulations, since all regulations are unconstitutional.
He will spend nothing on unconstitutional divisions. He'll close them and recommend formally repealing the enabling statutes.
Each time a judge writes an opinion, a constitutionalist president will interpret correctly whether the opinion is constitutional. If it isn't, he won't execute it.
Presidential autonomy has been bad. Progressives have used autonomy to do the things they ought not to do and to leave undone the things they ought to do.
Presidential autonomy will be good when it's used right. The Constitution expressly calls for presidents to use their powers to ensure that laws that are constitutional are faithfully executed. It also calls for presidents to treat unconstitutional statutes or opinions as moot.
Many people see all statutes as lawful, all executive orders as lawless or a waste, and all restraint as virtuous. Progressives exploit this too-simple thinking to keep Progressive Constitution-defiance locked into place.
Actually, statutes and opinions that violate the Constitution are unlawful. Executive orders that protect the Constitution are lawful. Restraint in protecting the Constitution is a vice.
Even a single constitutionalist executive will turn a government around. Freedom then always builds up strong support.