The voters actually have the last word imo. But corrupt, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification activist lawmakers, presidents and justices have seized the opportunity provided by widespread, inexcusable ignorance of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers to trick ordinary voters into turning the Oval Office into a throne room imo.
Regarding Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard), that’s when FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices scandalously started the political nullification of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty, including effectively nullifying the unique Article V power of the states to amend the Constitution.
More specifically, using inappropriate terms like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of 10A by FDR’s activist justices in Wickard after the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices had appropriately emphasized that amendment in United States v. Butler.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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 discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Ongoing abuse of their 17A power by ordinary voters sending crooks to DC has really finished off 10A and Article V imo.
Think of this political mayhem as crooks following the money, following the unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that corrupt Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Insights welcome.
Wickarrd v. Filburn is interesting in part because its logic does not match the facts.
If farmer Filburn had not threshed the excess wheat, he would not have been liable for the paltry tax, but his use of the unthresehd wheat for his own livestock would have had the same interstate effect that the illogical court used to justify its conclusion.
It wasn’t growing and consuming the wheat that triggered the tax - but it was growing and consuming the wheat that triggered the “interstate effect” that the decision depends on.
Court is a body of whim at this point. It hallucinates too. Lawyers study this illogic and apply it to current cases.
As an academic point, sure. But voting has no effect on the court. The justices do what they will, and have convinced themselves it is the right thing to do. They make up whatever to call all conclusions "constitutional."
The presence of dissenting opinions makes it obvious that there is serious disagreement as to the constitutionality of many decisions, but "it is what it is," and Don;t expect the people have the balls to even offer meaningful civil disobedience.