Replies

The Founders could not possibly have endorsed such an interpretation, and neither does the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination codify such an absurdity.

What the founders may or may not have countenanced is irrelevant. For one, what's good for Hamilton is not necessarily good for Mason. They weren't unanimous in their views.

It's the law that matters, as written. The Framers created a supreme national judiciary, unaccountable, whose opinions carry the same weight as Constitutional text, and from whom there is no appeal. The zeal of the framers to create a strong central government betrayed them. They succeeded in their quest for an energetic national government who could control the states. Pity.

So, what does the commerce clause mean? Whatever a majority of the SCOTUS says it means. Don't like it? All you have to do is get 2/3rds of each house, plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures to agree with you and pass an amendment.

2/3rds of each house plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures is required to alter the Constitution. A far cry from "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

As long as we have Article 3, along with the flabby language of the Constitution, we have UNLIMITED government.

It's the law that matters, as written. The Framers created a supreme national judiciary, unaccountable, whose opinions carry the same weight as Constitutional text, and from whom there is no appeal.

If we lived in a glass bubble your statement would hold water, but it doesn't. There is no appeal and for good reason. According to your magical statement the appeals process would extend out indefinitely and nothing would ever get done. Round and round we would go. Someone has to have the final say. How is this supposed to work exactly according to your magic bean theory of better government? They are accountable. As mentioned in this very statement:

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

But Congress always fails to act as it would not be in their best interest. It's not that the Constitution is "useless". It's the fact that corruption has been and always will be a major issue for every government. If anything the framers were extremely intelligent for introducing the Sholes Model (think QWERTY) into the process of checks and balances. This has kept the corruption at bay, for the most part.

Now, back to the Commerce "clause". The Supreme Court will make a decision in favor of the federal government. They will state that this socialist medical system falls in line with Social Security where a precedence has already been set for old fogies. We have one of two choices: 1) have the states organize a Constitutional Convention to line-item and rewrite parts of the Constitution, or 2) go to war.