the founding fathers realized that no government body could be expected, on its own, to restrain itself. So they came up with several different schemes by which groups would have conflicting interests and balance each other. The most well known of these schemes in the three branches of government.
However, there is also a balance between the federal government, the state governments, and the people. But this balance was terribly skewed with the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, which both stripped the power to control the federal government from the states, while at the same time removing the protective shield of the states from the people, so the federal government could directly involve itself in their lives.
Unfortunately, senators love the 17th Amendment, as they no longer need to care about their home state, so would never vote to repeal it, which leaves our government horribly out of balance.
So I’ve proposed the creation of a new body, that would both recreate this balance, but go further, to establish a continual “pruning” mechanism for the federal government, to in an orderly manner reduce its power to constitutional limits.
This new body would be like the US senate in composition, with two members specifically *appointed* by each state legislature to terms parallel to those of their two senators.
These would be 100 state judges appointed to a Second Court of the United States. Not a federal court, to determine constitutionality, which is what federal courts do, but a “jurisdictional court”, with the added responsibility of original jurisdiction to hear all lawsuits between the federal government and the states.
The 2nd Court would be inferior to the SCOTUS, but superior to the federal district courts.
Each year, some 3,600 federal judges essentially “federalize” local and state laws, to examine their constitutionality. But once federalized, they tend to stay in the federal domain, a huge power grab from the states. So after their constitutional questions have been resolved, the 2nd Court would decide if the case indeed does have a constitutional issue, or if it should just be returned to the states.
For example, unless there was a serious constitutional problem with a state death sentence, the states themselves, through this court, could take the decision away from whimsical federal judges, and say, “Not your issue, go ahead and carry out the sentence.”
Importantly, the “pruning” mechanism is by states suing the federal government, claiming say that the Department of Education has no constitutional basis, so should be abolished. If the other States agree then the court decides Education should be cut off.
“These would be 100 state judges appointed to a Second Court of the United States. Not a federal court, to determine constitutionality, which is what federal courts do, but a “jurisdictional court”, with the added responsibility of original jurisdiction to hear all lawsuits between the federal government and the states.”
Like the idea in principle but this kills it:
“The 2nd Court would be inferior to the SCOTUS, but superior to the federal district courts.”
The Cort must be superior to the Federal court being directly authorized by the states, and the Federal court cannot be in a position of judging the extent of its own power.
* Let the Federal courts be restricted to trying issues which are indisputably in the Federal jurisdiction.
* Let the new “Constitutional court” be restricted to deciding jurisdiction not cases.
* Let it be explicitly stated that The Federal governments own hand picked court only have jurisdiction over matters specifically UNDER the Federal Constitution not OVER the Federal Constitution itself.
That this “Constitutional court” appointed by the States has jurisdiction on implicitly enforcing the Constitution in terms of jurisdictional disputes only. That is to say they are NOT empowered to try any case themselves only to decide under which government’s court the case must be decided with preference toward the most local.
Perhaps it might even be wise to insure that the judges of this court themselves have some skin in the game by utilizing the State’s chief Justices, to compose this “Constitutional court”?
PS: Ultimately if you want to insure the consent of the governed you must restore the right of unilateral secession/revolution. Only in a voluntary union, must the General goverment serve its members for the mutual benefit of all rather than game & exploit them.