“Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.”
As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?
The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.
People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states.
The constitution is a document that protects individual rights by limiting the government’s role in our lives. It is not a document that was intended to grant unlimited rights which is what has happened through these poor precedents set by past Supreme Courts.
The commerce clause was intended to insure the fairness of trade and the ease of trade; period. If the states were left to their own, it would have been thirteen different policies on trade relations with foreign nations and chaos among the thirteen original colonies which could have resulted in many disputes, including civil war.
The commerce clause became the “Holy Grail” to big government advocates and has been twisted and molded into many forms. Much of this bad precedent can be traced to the administration of FDR, another big government advocate. FDR threatened the Supreme Court to successfully get his programs passed but the more important point is; if he could threaten the Supreme Court to change their opinion, can other administrations? That is why I ask; can we ever trust a Supreme Court to side with the people and the constitution? If not; what can be done?
Governors of the fifty states need to start challenging the federal government at every turn, and the way we must do it is through the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. But can we trust the Supreme Court to interpret the original intent or will they fall back on faulty precedent? Can the Supreme Court be unbiased in the argument to reduce the scope of the federal government they are a part of?
I am afraid that too many people don’t realize how important the Supreme Court is to our future. We could end up with two new justices which could be a blessing or disaster for our constitutional republic. We must continue to support our constitution by electing people that respect and understand how important abiding by the U.S. Constitution’s original intent is to a hopeful future. Governors need to start challenging the federal mandates but will the Supreme Court be able to judge these challenges fairly? The answer will only come as we continue our efforts to apply the constitution…
NEXT STEPS
Latest posts by Rich Hand (see all)
- Taking Credit for America’s Engine? - July 27, 2012
- The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent - April 5, 2012
- The Constitution and the Founders - December 28, 2011
Related posts
Andrew: Agree on your points. I am also campaigning on challenging the Sixteenth Amendment since it does not specify the limits of taxation the feds can extract directly from citizens and corporations. I am going to ask the voters of Colorado to limit the rate to 18% maximum in our state constitution and let the challenge begin.
First I must get elected…
Rich Hand
I am not an attorney or an "educated" person. It seems to me though if we are to restore limited lawful government, the 10th amendment will need to be supported by repeal of the 17th. When the state legislature chooses a senator, he or she will be doing the state's work and not the "peoples" in the broaders sense. The states will once again influence the choice of Justices, something lost with the popular election of senators. If we are successful with moving the tenth forward I believe we can repeal the 17th as we elect more constitutionalists to office. A side effect may just be the death of the two major parties, not a bad thing.
I have practiced law for years, I have raised the same question several times- the federal government has exceeded its power and control amongst the sewveral states. With the beginning of proibition, the growth of such new federal agencies began- DEA, FBI and ATF- there were many reasons in favor of such agencies. The mobs were well organized and financed to take over the manufacture, distribution and control of the alcholic beverage business. The FEDs only were to have jurisdiction in cASES INVOLVING iNTERSTATE COMMERCE-SELLING PRODUCTS ACROSS STATE lines. Remember- prohibition was enacted by reason of a constitutional amendment.
You made me cut much of it off, surely your website can hqandle more words. If you do not make or alloe a full discussion, all you will have is a bunch of people sending nonsense and junk