[Jacquerie]

There was nothing in the Constitutional Convention debates to indicate the interstate commerce clause meant anything more than, well, what it meant by the simple definitions of its words. Commerce is synonymous with trade. Any other so-called interpretation is a usurpation of the people's sovereign power NOT granted to the national government.

Join the debates as they happen this summer. Journal of the Federal Convention

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I quite agree. But this perversion of the interstate commerce clause has been with us since “Ol’ Frank”; and the perversion of the general welfare clause since LBJ.

That they are wrong is a given. But how to correct them, when none of the federal branches is willing to do so, is the problem.

This is why I propose a Second Court of the United States. It would again perform the role that the US senate was supposed to perform, before the 17th Amendment. But even more, it recognizes that the federal government now *mostly* performs activities that it is not authorized to by the constitution.

And it is a means to slowly and gradually correct those errors, reducing the government in size and authority: of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as the bureaucracy.

Right now, the Republicans in congress are preparing to introduce a constitutional amendment that with a concurrent resolution from 2/3rds of the States, a federal law, regulation or other edict could be overturned.

But it is a futile gesture. Even on the off chance that 34 legislatures, 2/3rds of the 7382 State legislators, agree on a single resolution, it will still only overturn a *single* federal law. It would take a millennium to reduce the federal government in that time.