And usurpation has become more open, recently.
In the early 1990's, Rehnquist was in the minority when he supported Asset Forfeiture in a case. He was obviously upset by the court's ruling, because on national news that evening, he whined, "This law was not too unconstitutional!"
In that same decade, Justice Souter's opinion in a Pennsylvania teacher's union labor case, read something like this: "I know this is unconstitutional but I am voting this way for labor peace."
Lately we have open support favoring so-called "international law" over the Constitution; and, of course, yesterday's ruling. When Supreme Court members openly admit they are voting contrary to the constituion, we no longer have a constitution but a monarchy, or, in our case, an oligarchy of unelected idealogues. They get away with it because our entire national and state government system, and our press, is corrupt.
In his 1792 National Gazette editorial, "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one", the real Philip Freneau wrote: ""As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particularly useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter . . . review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickerings, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined; and unfold one scene of the horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows . . . in order to render success the more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare" . . . If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to be ignorant, and be called by the artful, opposing the "general welfare," and may be cried down under that deception."
At least now you know why the government and press put so much time and resources into discrediting the militia movement during the 1990's. Even supposedly bright people, such as Rush Limbaugh, was in lockstep with the government and mainstream media on that one.