David Constant

@TedBrownLiberty @FeserEdward And it’s preferable if they skip the Green candidates.

@FeserEdward This is why voters should reject the corrupt duopoly and vote for Libertarian and Green candidates.

The GOP deserves to become a smoking crater. The Democrats will be no better. Elections are now just about punishing whichever gang of lunatics is holding power at the moment. This is unsustainable.

Trump's shortsighted foreign policy is bringing us to the brink of war with Iran and allowing Iran to accelerate nuclear program—just to please Saudis and Netanyahu. This is not America first.

President Trump campaigned on a promise of avoiding new wars and positioning himself as a president of peace. Escalating military conflict with Iran directly contradicts that pledge. Voters were told one thing and are now witnessing another. Many of the same leaders who claim to strictly follow the Constitution cannot ignore that fundamental separation of powers when it becomes politically inconvenient. President @realDonaldTrump has described the bombing of Iran as “major combat operations.” Let’s be clear: launching sustained airstrikes against another sovereign nation is war in any meaningful sense of the word. Under the United States Constitution, the power to declare war rests solely with Congress — not the President. Under the United States Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, and by unilaterally committing the nation to open conflict, President Trump has violated that constitutional mandate. Congress must act — not merely investigate — by impeaching him and convicting him to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional balance of powers. There is also deep concern about whose interests are being prioritized. The United States should not enter war at the behest of any foreign government, including Israel. The American people must come first in decisions of war and peace. Organizations such as @AIPAC wield significant influence in Washington, and many Americans believe that influence has distorted foreign policy decisions. Allegations that lawmakers are pressured or politically funded into supporting foreign military actions should be openly debated, not dismissed. In Texas, lawmakers have passed measures that discourage or penalize criticism of the Israeli government, raising serious First Amendment concerns. Citizens of Texas deserve the full protection of their constitutional rights, including the freedom to question foreign policy and the influence of lobbying organizations. Across the country, Americans deserve transparency and accountability from their elected officials when decisions about war and foreign alliances are being made. We call on every elected official at both the federal and state level to clearly state where they stand: on constitutional authority, on foreign influence in American policy, and on whether escalating war with Iran reflects the will of the American people. War is one of the gravest powers a government can exercise. It must never be entered lightly, indirectly, or without the explicit consent of the people through their representatives.

@dmcalister1 @reason It is an article about the hypocrisy of the three. Why would it mention the other three?

@david_constant @reason Yes. It doesn't mention the other justices.

Justice Neil Gorsuch details how Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh's past votes in similar major questions doctrine cases cannot be reconciled with their present votes in support of Trump's tariffs. reason.com/2026/02/20/gor…

@dmcalister1 @reason Did you read the article?

@reason Odd report. He blasted most of the members of the court, not just these three. I expect more from @reason than this kind of selective reporting.

@michaelshermer @Gravtum The audience capture is nearly complete.

Everyone is biased @Gravtum I try to ID mine and course correct when needed. Can you tell me where you think I am biased (and confused)?

Bigotry is irrational and repugnant.

So Libertarians have been doing the whole "No Kings" thing since 1971 when the @LPNational was formed in opposition to another Authoritarian named Richard Nixon taking us off the gold standard and prolonging the Vietnam War. We have been #NoKings for decades. You should rule your own life Not the Government #NoKingsOct18

Speaker Mike Johnson is proposing a continuing resolution (CR) that would lock in the same spending levels set under the Biden administration. While framed as a temporary measure to avoid a government shutdown, it effectively cements Biden’s budgets as the new baseline, eliminating the possibility of reverting to leaner numbers. This means Congress would carry forward higher levels of expenditure without the debates or adjustments typically tied to appropriations. By doing so, Johnson’s plan erases the spending reductions achieved during the Trump years. Those cuts, which were promoted as victories for fiscal responsibility and smaller government, would no longer guide federal outlays. Instead, agencies would assume Biden’s higher levels as permanent, undermining the very reductions Republicans had once celebrated. The irony is that conservatives opposing Johnson’s CR on fiscal grounds are being branded as “anti-Trump.” Supporting the CR erases Trump’s cuts but signals loyalty to him personally, while rejecting it defends his fiscal record but risks being painted as disloyal. This paradox underscores how political allegiance often twists principles, leaving fiscal conservatives caught in a bind between Trump’s legacy and his current positioning. Libertarians would go far beyond the modest reductions made under Trump by targeting the root causes of runaway spending: the endless wars, massive entitlement programs, and corporate subsidies that both parties protect. Instead of trimming around the edges, libertarians would abolish entire federal departments, end foreign military interventions, eliminate corporate welfare, and return most spending authority to the states and individuals. Their vision isn’t just about cutting budgets slightly—it’s about radically shrinking the size and scope of government to restore fiscal sanity and personal liberty.

@johnnyveritas @LPNational The obvious difference between the hypothetical example you provide and the circumstances of the recent real world action is that one is an act of war and the other is not. Different rules apply.

Honest question here. What if an agitating country, let's say China, sends a boat of Chinese people that are dressed as citizens, and our intelligence community gets word they have a dirty bomb they are bringing here. So, they are headed here on a boat, just like this boat in the video, but with a bomb, even though you can't see it. Do we still have to wait for what you call due process in that scenario? If someone presents a direct threat, does someone still need to wait for due process? Honest question here, I just don't understand your take on this.

The U.S. strike on a Venezuelan vessel allegedly linked to narcotics and terrorism represents a dangerous escalation of unchecked executive power. Labeling people as “narco-terrorists” and killing them without trial or congressional authorization is extrajudicial violence that undermines the rule of law. As Libertarians, we condemn this normalization of government power to kill first and justify later. Due process is not optional. America must not drift further into a policy of unaccountable violence abroad or at home.

"Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals." -LP.org

Some have accused us of having TDS. Any government that violates human rights, that steals and murders, that weaponizes itself against peaceful individuals, should be drastically altered or abolished. The only purpose of government is in the defense of individual liberty from the force and fraud of others. Anything beyond that should be torn down.

@carynannharlos I voted for Ron Paul for President in 1988. He was the LP candidate when I first began seeking an alternative to the older parties. But he was not the reason for my libertarianism. Others have inspired me more — before and since. None deserve idolatry, if that’s what it is.

Texas has a proud tradition of telling government busybodies: “Come and take it.” A majority of Texans—and even a majority of Republicans—support ending cannabis prohibition. Yet politicians in Austin cling to oppressive, outdated laws that criminalize peaceful people. It’s time to end marijuana prohibition in Texas. Let’s join the 24 states that already respect the freedom to choose. #txlege #EndProhibition #ComeAndTakeIt #Liberty

Modern problems require modern solutions.

Not every moral belief belongs in the law. A free society allows people to make their own choices, even when those choices are risky, unpopular, or offensive to some. History shows that outlawing personal vices doesn’t eliminate them — it just drives them underground, fuels crime, and erodes liberty. Every law is ultimately enforced through the threat or use of violence, so we should be careful about what we empower the state to punish. The role of government should be to protect life, liberty, and property, not to police personal morality. When we legislate every vice, we turn the law into a weapon against freedom itself.

@HoustonChron "We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all alternatives." Libertarian Party Platform, Plank 3.6

Opinion | Texas Libertarians are against gerrymandering whether it's done by Democrats or Republicans. houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outloo…