Posted on 05/19/2022 6:07:56 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Let’s face it...the Feds have been usurping the power of the States for years...under the guise of...”If you want money...Obey”.
“… Court-watchers and pundits have pointed to same-sex marriage…
…Notably, the Court may soon declare the use of race in college admissions—affirmative action—illegal, and it may also massively constrain the power of the federal government to protect the environment.”
So much panic! I’m not seeing a problem here.
My understanding of the Constitution, undoubtedly flawed as hell, says FedGov has ONLY those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and no others. (Ninth and Tenth Amendments being real and applicable.)
Therefore, the Supremes could spend the next ten years throwing out federal law after federal law, nonstop and uninterrupted. Where the HELL does FedGov get the power to outlaw 100-watt lightbulbs, require ethanol or 10,000 other intrusions into our lives.
In fairness, however, I think a new Amendment would be needed to keep Social Security in place. Otherwise, start slashing!
only if you change the definition of contraception
so he is outright lying
They need to right many of the ludicrous 60s decisions by the activist court...
Like Religion in the public square and schools.
The interpretation that No State Sponsored religion equates to no religion of any sort allowed in public is fundamentally incorrect.
And their pertained protection details.
Personal. Stupid spell checker.
The death of merit
Zen Master told me last year that Roe, Guns, Affirmative Action would be settled in our favor . . . in that order.
THE CONSTITUTION, NOT the Court, is the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2).
Constitutionally, the Court does NOT have exclusive right to interpret, apply the Constitution. The Constitution gives no such power to the Court. If the feds including the courts, violate the Constitution, the remedy must come from elsewhere.
Who then? Other branches of the federal government. The States. After all, the Constitution created the very limited federal government to protect the people’s God-given freedoms and liberties from government coercion.
The remedy begins with reading and applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Plain language should be taken a such again with the understanding that the intent of the Constitution was a LIMITED government that would protect America mainly from outside invasion. (The states are constitutionally local governance to deal with law and order within our country.)
If there is ambiguity, again, you go to the original understanding of the language, the agreement with the foundation of the Constitution which is the Declaration of Independence as persuasive authority for intent, as well as the intent of the 13 ratifying states who wanted the protection but also no infractions on their freedom and sovereignty.
The Constitution MANDATES that all federal law or Court decisions be “in Pursuance” of the Constitution (Id.) but does not identify who may correct such infractions especially if such infraction come from flawed, unconstitutional Court decisions.
Thus, the Constitution does not not prohibit any recognizable entity - states, other branches of the feds - from nullifying an unconstitutional federal law or Court decision after publishing a reasonable, Constitutional-based challenge. The main reason the states have not done so is because the state politicians are afraid of losing their unconstitutional federal funding.
A big key is the people of the states voting in the right people to take charge of the states so the states become financially INDEPENDENT of the feds as they once were.
Feral gov creates way more problems than that just being in the business of making and guaranteeing loans at all. Just end that across the board.
They are worried, and they are right to worry because they know that those "rights" have no constitutional foundation.
They may be common-law rights, or protected by States as consumer rights, but they are not Federal Constitutional rights enforceable by courts all over the US.
That would be huge! Together with an explicit list of thousands of laws that rely on Wickard for existence and are therefore null and void, so that a Wickard challenge to each and every law doesn’t have to work its way thorough the system, times thousands, and each one remain presumptively valid till they make it all the way.
The two worst mentions/clauses of the US Constitution that have been horribly abuse are 1) the Commerce Clause, and 2) ‘general welfare.’
Yes, but that was in England without a Constitution like we have that is the Supreme Law of the land and cannot be validly broken without an amendment.
And the idea of "common law" can probably still be continued AS LONG AS it does not violate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Given that, there's no conflict between our Free Constitutional Republic and constitutionally-based judge-made common law.
The non-delegation argument needs to be vigorously implemented and applied to all the alphabet agencies, including EPA and BATFE. For example, the recent BATFE regulations on "ghost guns" re-write the statutory definition of a firearm, which the agency has no authority to do.
Uphold the 2nd Amendment against all the imbecilic state and local restrictions on "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," etc. The chance of an American dying in a mass shooting by a kook with a gun is about the same as an American being killed by lightning. There is no compelling state interest in regulating firearms when states and the Federal government can simply vacuum criminals off the street without infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners. Infringing on gun rights vs. incarcerating criminals is not a constitutional policy choice.
All of the specious "rights" supposedly granted by the 14th Amendment, including Obergefell need to be thrown out. The right to substantive due process means the right to have legal actions taken in the manner prescribed by law and that such actions are not merely pro-forma. The law presumptively can control any behavior except that restricted by amendment. Those amendments do not include sexual behavior, and every society since the dawn of recorded history has restricted sexual behavior. No societies before our own have ever recognized the monstrosity of "gay marriage."
“But they all raise issues that have been the targets of conservative legal scholars for decades, and they will now be decided by a right-wing Court with seemingly little commitment to its own precedents......”
————
The Atlantic forgot to add, “…precedents that were decided by left-wing courts with seemingly little commitment to the Constitution.”
It is well past time for the power of the federal government to be reigned in. The federal government, since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, has grown without any meaningful limits to something way beyond what the founding fathers ever envisioned. Its power over the lives of ordinary Americans, down to the smallest detail of private life, is incomprehensible under the Constitution. But that is what happens when the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution and legislates based on what five unelected and unaccountable justices believe at any point in time to be socially correct. That is not their job, and it exceeds their authority. If they wish to legislate, then they should run for Congress. It is time for the era of American empire to end, and for the Republic to be restored. The first step in this process is to reign in the seemingly unlimited power of the federal government. I have been waiting for a session of the Court like this one is shaping up to be for my entire adult life…and it is magnificent.
“Notably, the Court may soon declare the use of race in college admissions—affirmative action—illegal...”
Remember, words do not mean what they mean, they mean what we want them to mean. Case in point ‘woman’.
“ Where the HELL does FedGov get the power to outlaw 100-watt lightbulbs, require ethanol or 10,000 other intrusions into our lives.”
————
Wickard v. Filburn. If the Supremes rule against the EPA in the case mentioned above, that means Wickard is dead. I have been waiting for that moment since I first learned about Wickard in law school, nearly 40 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.