Article V ping!
If it is worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then make them turn a blind eye to the Constitution and only see statutes then what is it to require others in other departments to take such an oath and then make them turn a blind eye to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court?
A Convention of States would be a great way to add congressional term limits, line item veto, and a better presidential removal process to the Constitution. In place of the cumbersome, ineffective impeachment process, a resolution passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures should be enough to oust a president who’s corrupt, incompetent, treasonous, or came to power via voter fraud.
Excellent review of how we got here...
However, with so many states under the control of Soros-funded AGs and other politicians, Article V can be a trap as well...
Can Article V “remove” the communist-inspired amendments?
Or, maybe, create amendments that effectively bypass the bad amendments?
Standing by.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Yes, state taxes will inevitably go up. But “through the ceiling,” constitutionally indefensible Brandon Administration taxing and spending, such federal domestic policy prohibited according to the Gibbons v. Ogden excerpt above, should drop like a rock.
And even though state taxes go up, it's easier to get rid of tax-hungry elected state representatives than it is to get rid of tax-hungry elected federal representatives imo.
Patriots first need to get their Constitution-impaired, career state lawmakers up to speed with the following constitutional reality. State lawmakers should never have let the so-called “federal” funding that they brag about winning every year to get themselves reelected, leave their respective states in the first place. This is because most "federal" funding is arguably stolen state revenues, such revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Again, the excerpt from the Gibbons v. Ogden opinion.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of 14th Amendment, had clarified that the Founding States had intended for the states, not the feds, to be trusted with the care of the people.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
Justice Louis Brandeis later seemingly reflected on Bingham's words by introducing his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor. Brandeis's metaphor indicates that it's ultimately up to the legal majority citizen / taxpaying voters of a given state to decide what kind of state social spending programs (my words) they want.
"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.
Noting that state infrastructure, for example, is a state power issue imo, the states will continue to struggle with maintaining infrastructure until the states wise up and repeal 16&17A, thus eliminating the unconstitutional “middleman,” the unconstitutionally big federal government, from "helping" the states to manage their revenues imo. (Unaccountable “federal” funding despite constitutional requirements to publish receipts.)
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [emphasis added]."
Corrections, insights welcome.
While they’re at it, a COS needs to deep-six the idea that an unelected agency (e.g., the EPA) can enact regulations that have virtually the authority of law. The Constitution nowhere grants Congress the authority to delegate the legislative power to bureaucrats who never answer to the people in an election.
Can anyone think of a single example where the right has legislated from the courts?