On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are ‘soft’ in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.
On closer inspection, we’ll find that hard Constitutional clauses have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category.
To keep the entirety of our Constitution in force requires institutions designed for the continued defense of hard clauses and renewed defense of soft clauses.
For instance, the scotus’ infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn opinion regarding interstate commerce did enormous and continuing damage to state sovereignty. Despite the clear wording of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, Wickard or a similar ruling was an eventual certainty since the states had not been in the senate to defend their interests since 1913. A senate of the states had previously ensured the commerce clause remained in the hard clause category.
The 17th Amendment doomed many previously hard clauses into soft clause irrelevance. There are other examples.
To the extent that the Second Amendment is intact is not due to its enumeration in the Bill of Rights. The 2A remains in force due to attentive citizen groups who stand ready to render electoral hell on politicians who waver on this fundamental right.
They keep encroaching on more and more of the hard clauses all the time. The new assault is on the Electoral College. They keep whittling away and there won’t be much left except for three branches of government.
You are absolutely right about the Wickard v Filburn decision. One of the worst supreme court decisions ever. Pretty much gave the federal government unlimited control of all commerce.