Replies

This arises from the 17th Amendment. Until then the States *could* control the judiciary by not confirming anyone who did not respect States rights and the limitations of the Constitution. It is not a coincidence that about a generation after the 17th Amendment, FDR was trying to 'pack the court' to get his UnConstitutional acts passed, and then didn't need to because he was able to replace enough of the last of the supreme court justices who had been confirmed by a Senate the truly represented the States.

On the other hand, I am not a proponent of an Article V convention. There is no way that can help. If the written words of the Constitution mattered to the statists, then we'd be okay today. The Constitution (particularly the 10th Amendment) provides all the limitation on the federal government that we should need - and it's consistently ignored. More written words would just be ignored as well.

The only people who would be limited by a new Constitution are those who feel we should abide by the written words. Why should we allow even the risk (and it's virtually a certainty) that the statists would get some new words that limited us while ignoring any words we might get that limited them?

I don't mean to appear to be short by posting a link, but your concern is not uncommon, and I posted a vanity in November 2014 which dealt with it.

Just Enforce the Constitution We Have

Oops. I forgot to add, the only worthwhile amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th, which cannot be ignored any easier than even calendar year elections.