DannyTN, would you please tell me the main reason that the Founding States drafted the federal Constitution?
Next, and with all due respect DannyTN, since you evidently regard how corrupt justices interpret the Constitution as more important than what you can read with your own eyeballs, please note the following. When FDR's activist justices decided cases like US v. Darby and the later Wickard v. Filburn in the early 1940s, cases which tested the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (Clause 3 of Article 8 of Article I) they wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerse.
”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 you say that FDR's puppet justices said yes to federal minimum wage in U.S. v. Darby, I say the Court had previously clarified in broad terms that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate any aspect of intrastate commerce, including wages, in Gibbons v. Ogden. And you can't show me an amendment to the Constitution after the Court decided Gibbons which reasonably shows that FDR's puppet justices could justify their decision in Darby.
In other words, FDR's justices scandalously knocked down constitutional limits on Congress's powers with a thousand "razor cuts."
The bottom line is that you need to question all Supreme Court decisions made after FDR "nuked" the Supreme Court with activist justices, particularly in cases where the Supremes tested the limits of Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
I could waste my time questioning it. But it would do no good. It's settled law, and new supreme court justices are not going to overturn it.
You can overturn the minimum wage laws just by getting congress and a president to agree to repeal the FLSA. But it's been 70 years and nobody even talks about repealing it. The talk is all about whether or not they should increase it.
Even conservative justices wouldn't overturn it, because there is simply too many federal programs that are outside of the enumerated powers listed in the 10th. The impact on the country would be too large.
If you want to restore the enumerated powers, you have to eviscerate the commerce clause. But no justice would support your cause unless you came up with a plan for all of the programs that are outside the 10th. You'd have to have legislation that specifically addresses each program and either grants federal authority to continue or provides a plan to delegate it to the states.
That's the only way you'd ever get even a bench full of ultra conservative justices to overturn the precedents that have been set. Until you do that, you're just so much noise on the wind.
You're hoping the 10th will limit the Federal government the way you want. But your complaint without a plan is not viable, and never will be. So you're just wasting people's time.