For those who believe the Supreme Court regularly exceeds its authority

All most every example of over-reaching lamented about by the far right, finds its authority in the Commerce Clause. Yet there has never been an attempt to modify the Clause by Amendment.
 
So, in the 212 years since the ruling in Marbury, why do you think not a single federal judge has been criminally convicted or impeached for committing the gross abuse of power known as judicial review?

Two centuries of cowardice by EVERY President and EVERY Congress is NOT a credible explanation.

Because the very people charged with such a duty benefit from the continual expansion of Federal power and bureaucracy. Those that feed at the trough that finance the campaigns all benefit from influence, or at a minimum, assurances that their neighbor's rather than their ox shall be gored.

No government ever voluntarily reduces it's own power. The States were supposed to be a check on the power of the monster they created since it was charged with doing their bidding, not the other way around.

In my view, that check was lost when Senators were elected by popular vote and not subject to immediate recall if they displeased their State legislatures, where the real power was supposed to reside.

All most every example of over-reaching lamented about by the far right, finds its authority in the Commerce Clause. Yet there has never been an attempt to modify the Clause by Amendment.

See above. The commerce clause abuses enlarge the trough. No point in coming up with a new set to replace the old, fairly ambiguous words for another set of unambiguous words that will also be ignored.
 
Last edited:
All most every example of over-reaching lamented about by the far right, finds its authority in the Commerce Clause. Yet there has never been an attempt to modify the Clause by Amendment.

Not to mention a host of other transgressions against the will of the people committed by SCOTUS. Race. Abortion. Taxes. Welfare. Gay rights.

The mechanism for change is all right there in Article V. What are you waiting for? Do it or STFU.
 
The word "regulate" is a very interesting one constitutionally, especially considering its meaning through the eras of American history.

Today, for instance, many consider it to mean rule over, whereas in the past so many then used it as well run, regulated like a well-oiled machine, for example.

Think about a well-regulated militia in that regard and the difference that interpretation makes to how Amendment II is argued so much today.

The meaning of words change over time as culture changes. It's almost impossible to understand what the framers actually meant without understanding how they defined the words they employed. Quite an interesting niche itself that, I imagine.
 
Not to mention a host of other transgressions against the will of the people committed by SCOTUS. Race. Abortion. Taxes. Welfare. Gay rights.

The mechanism for change is all right there in Article V. What are you waiting for? Do it or STFU.

As I am sure you are aware...

...there are sufficient States that would be so inclined, already...to call an Article V convention...

The rub lies with getting the necessary States to ratify anything that came out of such an august gathering.
 
Because the very people charged with such a duty benefit from the continual expansion of Federal power and bureaucracy. Those that feed at the trough that finance the campaigns all benefit from influence, or at a minimum, assurances that their neighbor's rather than their ox shall be gored.

No government ever voluntarily reduces it's own power. The States were supposed to be a check on the power of the monster they created since it was charged with doing their bidding, not the other way around.

In my view, that check was lost when Senators were elected by popular vote and not subject to immediate recall if they displeased their State legislatures, where the real power was supposed to reside.

Okay, so if I follow your argument, it is the U. S. Senate which has consistently thwarted the will of the people expressed through the voting by representational districts comprising both the House of Representatives and individual state legislatures.

Except history demonstrates that it hasn't worked out that way. That's far too simplistic.

Does the government reduce its power when it lowers taxes? Did it reduce its power when it freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote? Who knew what those crazy demographic segments would do with such power?

If "governments" never reduce their power, I would have thought the individual white guys who historically made up those governments would have done a far better job of STRENGTHENING rather than relaxing their grip on the reins.
 
Okay, so if I follow your argument, it is the U. S. Senate which has consistently thwarted the will of the people expressed through the voting by representational districts comprising both the House of Representatives and individual state legislatures.

Except history demonstrates that it hasn't worked out that way. That's far too simplistic.

Does the government reduce its power when it lowers taxes? Did it reduce its power when it freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote? Who knew what those crazy demographic segments would do with such power?

If "governments" never reduce their power, I would have thought the individual white guys who historically made up those governments would have done a far better job of STRENGTHENING rather than relaxing their grip on the reins.

The Senate was designed to be not swayed by the whims of the population at large. We have the opposite of that now. Schools now teach that we live "in a democracy" and they are not far wrong.

It is arguably true that the government created by and for those that owned the land in which they were establishing their government was nearly exclusively white males, the fact that those persons set up the government has nothing at all to do with the government taking on a life and a bureaucracy and patronage of its own.

I am sure many anti-suffragettes and anti-abolitionists foresaw where we might be now, but that is besides the point. The Government itself does not care who votes to allow it continual power increases, only that it does. The fact that previously marginalized people have a voice speaks to the better angels of those detestable old white male landowners, but it is not prima fascia evidence that the government itself is in anyway anything but on an ever increasing trajectory of taking power unto itself.

What can you do in America these days on your own land (assuming you are not one of the few residents of Eyer-ville) without having permission from local, county, state and federal government agencies?

Having some individual groups of citizens with more power than they here-to-fore had affects the balance of power between citizen groups, not the citizens in aggregate vs the government. Short of starting over, citizens can only nibble away at the rate of increase.

After all, we are just talking about a few "reasonable" laws and regulations and standards and agencies on top of a few more "reasonable" laws and regulations and standards and agencies...
 
The word "regulate" is a very interesting one constitutionally, especially considering its meaning through the eras of American history.

Today, for instance, many consider it to mean rule over, whereas in the past so many then used it as well run, regulated like a well-oiled machine, for example.

Think about a well-regulated militia in that regard and the difference that interpretation makes to how Amendment II is argued so much today.

The meaning of words change over time as culture changes. It's almost impossible to understand what the framers actually meant without understanding how they defined the words they employed. Quite an interesting niche itself that, I imagine.

I think one could make a reasonable argument that, given any particular piece of legislation, the framers may not have always completely understood one another at the time they were "framing."

And if Nancy Pelosi truly believes we have to pass something to actually find out what's in it, that may not represent a great deal of progress over the passage of time.

Revisiting you hypothesis re: well-regulated militia. Is it not possible that in the Constitutional Convention a representative from an Eastern Seaboard state was most concerned with the maintenance of a militia and curtailing excesses by the central government while a representative of a frontier state was more concerned with personal firearm ownership and killing indians to facilitate westward expansion? Could these different representatives have "defined" the purpose of the Second Amendment differently? That seems possible to me.

Did it happen? Hell, I don't know.

Just sayin.' :D
 
I think one could make a reasonable argument that, given any particular piece of legislation, the framers may not have always completely understood one another at the time they were "framing."

And if Nancy Pelosi truly believes we have to pass something to actually find out what's in it, that may not represent a great deal of progress over the passage of time.

Revisiting you hypothesis re: well-regulated militia. Is it not possible that in the Constitutional Convention a representative from an Eastern Seaboard state was most concerned with the maintenance of a militia and curtailing excesses by the central government while a representative of a frontier state was more concerned with personal firearm ownership and killing indians to facilitate westward expansion? Could these different representatives have "defined" the purpose of the Second Amendment differently? That seems possible to me.

Did it happen? Hell, I don't know.

Just sayin.' :D

Not even slightly possible. Their biggest concern was finding themselves on the receiving end of an oppressive government's muskets having just been through that.

Regulated simply meant that when (and if) a (temporary, non-standing) army was called up that the local militias would be arrayed in good order with gear that didn't have to be cobbled together at the last minute and that worked well together within those militias who were expected to train and drill together to provide local defense against injuns, miscreants, vagabonds and the like. Regulated meant "equipped in an orderly way."
 
Just piping in to take exception with the implication of "representational districts".


Back to lurking.
 
The Senate was designed to be not swayed by the whims of the population at large. We have the opposite of that now. Schools now teach that we live "in a democracy" and they are not far wrong.

It is arguably true that the government created by and for those that owned the land in which they were establishing their government was nearly exclusively white males, the fact that those persons set up the government has nothing at all to do with the government taking on a life and a bureaucracy and patronage of its own.

I am sure many anti-suffragettes and anti-abolitionists foresaw where we might be now, but that is besides the point. The Government itself does not care who votes to allow it continual power increases, only that it does. The fact that previously marginalized people have a voice speaks to the better angels of those detestable old white male landowners, but it is not prima fascia evidence that the government itself is in anyway anything but on an ever increasing trajectory of taking power unto itself.

What can you do in America these days on your own land (assuming you are not one of the few residents of Eyer-ville) without having permission from local, county, state and federal government agencies?

Having some individual groups of citizens with more power than they here-to-fore had affects the balance of power between citizen groups, not the citizens in aggregate vs the government. Short of starting over, citizens can only nibble away at the rate of increase.

After all, we are just talking about a few "reasonable" laws and regulations and standards and agencies on top of a few more "reasonable" laws and regulations and standards and agencies...

While I freely acknowledge your points, I am not certain where you would collectively have us go as a society. The massive growth of this nation in two or three hundred years and the once unfathomable mobility of nearly everyone in it creates a reality and need for regulation that simply could not have been foreseen or forestalled once it occurred.

The "freedom," if it can be so inappropriately termed, to die of smallpox cannot simply be sustained in an age where vaccines exist and the quarantine of infected persons can prevent epidemics.

Okay, so if that is too extreme an example, let's ratchet it down. I remember as a kid burning leaves we raked up from the yard every fall. I understand why many municipalities with air quality issues don't allow that anymore. Should we really exorcise ourselves over that loss of freedom?

How could you best quantify your gripe for me? What are the losses that most get under your skin? As specific as possible, please.
 
While I freely acknowledge your points, I am not certain where you would collectively have us go as a society. The massive growth of this nation in two or three hundred years and the once unfathomable mobility of nearly everyone in it creates a reality and need for regulation that simply could not have been foreseen or forestalled once it occurred.

The "freedom," if it can be so inappropriately termed, to die of smallpox cannot simply be sustained in an age where vaccines exist and the quarantine of infected persons can prevent epidemics.

Okay, so if that is too extreme an example, let's ratchet it down. I remember as a kid burning leaves we raked up from the yard every fall. I understand why many municipalities with air quality issues don't allow that anymore. Should we really exorcise ourselves over that loss of freedom?

How could you best quantify your gripe for me? What are the losses that most get under your skin? As specific as possible, please.

That's tough to say isn't it?

No doubt, they passed a regulation last week that (if I knew what it was) I would take umbrage with since it affects some area of my life negatively. This usually boils down to time or money, regulatory or reporting requirements when "I" require no such nanny-state oversight.

I am equally sure they they passed a regulation last week that (if I knew what it was) I would celebrate, since it affects some area of my life positively. This also often boils down to money, regulatory or reporting requirements where I am not affected and incur no noticeable, direct cost of my time or money, but decide that such inconveniences for someone "not me" are OK in the interest of having my world a little cleaner and better landscaped.

It is really hard to point to anything because it is a death of a thousand cuts. In four decades or so of my observing such change I am certain that there was less government intrusion in 1975 then today. I cannot speak to the differences between, say July and right now, but somewhere, someone's ox got gored.

None of that on a grand scale is happing in places we compete with, which makes it much harder to be competitive. If you had a great idea for a product and needed to get it to market before this Christmas there is no place in America you could throw up a factory and start making it inside of a couple of years.

Would I be happy with an agreement that we currently have "enough' regulation? That the laws that enrich insurance companies like mandatory insurance for people who have no means, and therefore no insurable interest are "OK" in the greater good, but lets not keep pushing up those limits? (they arent pushing for that, they simply increase premiums for the same mniscule, meaningless coverage...but I digress)

As far as what to do about it, Article V as you mentioned is the only option but that would do no good. The same mechanisms used in redefining terms reinterpreting plain language, seeing clauses and powers where there are none would simply begin anew.

The size of the country is not a justification for the morass we are in, it is the cause and exactly what was hoped would be avoided by NOT centralizing government.

Take the house of representatives. Is it truly representative of an individual citizen's input if one guy speaks with the voice of over one million vastly diverse citizens because he won in a run-off election?

If the matters were trivial and ones easilly sussed out as in the best interest of or not in the best interest of all one million citizens it would work fine.

Do you know how many farmers work at the Department of Agriculture? I would imagine less farmers than lawyers. Same for every government agency. How are the people EPA more qualified than their counter parts at the Department of Environmental Quality in my State? Because they have an office in Washington and lunch with K-street lobbyists? People in my State do not wish to have polluted air or water or despoiled public lands, why would not those closest to the need for oversight be best informed about what is the best balance to strike?

The answer was supposed to be local control, local rule. We have anything but that.

The Department of agriculture does not result in lower food prices for consumers and better quality. Instead it is a pork wagon for really bad quality food to be pawned off at federal government expense to school cafeterias. It is a huge giveaway in inefficient and fraud-ridden food stamp benefits and school lunch subsidies. All of that, dollar for dollar could have easily been administered at the local level with far less abuse.

None of this matters though because of the ratchet effect. I forget who coined that idea. Government gets a bit of leverage through a giveaway, and no state can ever afford to give any of it back so they accept the conditions that come with the boatloads of federal money.

The real culprit, when you get down to it is local. They take state money because they cannot spend more than they take in. Ditto the states taking Federal money because they cannot run deficits. The Federal Government can and that is the source of all their power.

Snip that and the problem fades and dies. But it will ever happen. There are lobbyists and lawyers and campaign consultants for every one of the 1.6 trillion dollars that are spent every year on a deficit basis. No one seriously wants to reign that in.

Fantasy world? I'd like to see States get together in compacts for mutually amenable aims and simply dissolve the Federal Government once those new borders are redrawn. East coast not like how the West wants to exploit their resources, fine, leave. What's that you say? You breath the same air as the West? True enough. You also breath Mexico's and Canada's. Between the two models who do you think these newly formed unions would most emulate?

By the way China breaths the same air and borders the same oceans as we do. Ditto India.

Well that is a ramble with few solutions since there aren't any within reach. I would like to see some states push back anywhere on anything. Nullify something, anything.
 
In a word gerrymandering.

If you don't like the lawful mechanism of optimizing the boundaries for the benefit of whichever party in your State is in power then you also should be alarmed by the consolation of power that happened when your State legislature lost the ability to recall BOTH Senators at the sole discretion of the Statehouse.

It enabled lines to be drawn so that a party could maximize the stability of "their" guy in the Senate and made it basically impossible for the citizens of a State to recall, for example, Mitch McConnell. His seat is, and always will be safe.

These same tactics also insure that not the best or brightest rise through the ranks to become Senate leader or House Speaker, but it meant that those with the safest seats serve the longest and become the leaders through absolutely nothing more than longevity. So the people with the MOST power are the people who are the LEAST answerable in their home districts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top