Patriots are encouraged to develop the habit of always checking any legislation, action, including Supreme Court decisions, of the unconstitutionally big federal government against Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, and other powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds.
After all, patriots cannot expect institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring justices to bother with such questions.
And if no clause is found to reasonably justify legislation, action or decision, then it is probably unconstitutional.
Patriots should note that there are actually two constitutional questions associated with this front-end religious freedom case imo. The problem is that the Court seems to have unsurprisingly ignored the question of enumerated powers which will be examined in the following analysis.
To the best of my knowledge about pensions, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the state sovereignty-ignoring feds the specific power to establish policy concerning INTRAstate pensions, same problem with healthcare, regardless of questions concerning religious protections. So the Court’s decision is once again giving the wrong impression of the scope of federal government powers.
”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.
In fact, the feds seem to unconstitutionally have their big noses into state power issues these days because of the tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
(sarc) FDR’s activist justices found new powers for Congress that the Founding States had evidently “hidden” in the Constituton’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3). “Hero” justices were able to find these “lost” powers by reading the clause with “ACME magic reading glasses,” (such glasses now available in the Supreme Court gift shop), using these “long lost” powers to justify wrongly deciding Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.(/sarc)
Regarding the uncommon common sense interpretation of the Commerce Clause as the Founding States had intended for that clause to be understood, FDR’s justices wrongly ignored the clarification of that clause by a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So while this case is front-ended with the question of religious protections, justices are wrongly ignoring likely federal interference with state sovereignty where pensions and healthcare are concerned.
In fact, this case is arguably another example of the unconstitutionally big federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers in subtle ways. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had warned patriots to be on their guard against such things.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
Also, when the states quit sitting on their hands and repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, they need to include a provision in the repeal amendment which does the following.
The provision should require the courts to presume guilt of unconstitutional expansion of the already unconstitutional big federal government’s powers by the feds with respect to legislation or actions of the feds which have questionable constitutional justification.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
A10, your insight is much appreciated.