Hope you will check it out and leave feedback on the iTunes store! Thanks!

SCOTUS is part of the government.

And, as stated here already, the method you propose is not how amendments are supposed to be used – no matter how much you want or claim them to be.

No, it’s not that the Gov’t is using the clause improperly, SCOTUS has misinterpreted the clause in violation of its original meaning. There is no other avenue to fix the problem. Marbury v. Madison properly established the judical power of nullification. No matter what Congress or the president does, the only way to change the misinterpretation of the clause is to change the document so that SCOTUS is forced to give the clause its original meaning.

The founders advised changing the constitution by amendment when you wanted to CHANGE it – not REAFFIRM it. I’d have to research futher, but I do believe that this would be an unconstitutional use of the amendment power….becuase you’re asking people to use it for something which it was not intended to be used for.

Thus, I’d be strongly opposed to any proposal to simply reaffirm proper meanings. There are countless amendments that would be required to reaffirm proper meanings and intentions of clauses in the constitution – commerce, necessary and proper and others.

there are proper ways to push back against the feds when they are misusing a clause in the constitution:

1. elections
2. litigation
3. nullification

The first 2 have failed for most issues – the third is the next step, as advised by the founders.

while your goal is quite worthy, your method is not something I’d ever get behind….

The amendment would be to restore the original meaning of the General Welfare clause, which was that the clause should only operate pursuant to the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8.

Once that original meaning is restored, SCOTUS has a sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, even over actions by Congress and the President that are contrary to the document. (That is the meaning of “judicial power,” as used in the document.

Because SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the Constitution, it can use its right of judicial nullification to check Congress and the President.

Note that judicial nullification (holding a law unconstitutional) is not the same as judicial supremacy (which is what occurred in Roe v. Wade). I’m not advocating judicial supremacy.

The result would be that all programs and departments in the Fed. Gov’t that do not fall under the enumerated powers would have to be eliminated. This would include Social Security, Medicare, Dept. of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA, etc. Some functions would be returned to the States where they validly belong. Others would be ended forever.

With the Fed. Gov’t operating according to its enumerated powers and the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, the country would eventually restore itself fiscally. The restoration would take at least a generation, but it would occur.

The alternative is the path we are on now – bankruptcy or taxes at a level which would destroy any incentive to work. Who will work when they have to pay 70% to 80% of their wages to the government? At that point, it is over – the grand experiment has failed.

The Constitution is either a constant holding the meaning it was created with or it is not only useless as such a law but dangerous. THAT is the point, and that is why simply amending this document as to match the original meaning hopefully in the eyes of its “current interpreters” misses the point even if it were practical. The political minority must have the means to resist usurpation. And the only way I know to do that is to empower the states and thus the people with mobility to interpret the limits of the Constitution on the power of the central government for themselves in parallel and competition with that of the central governments own.

They must balance each other just as they balance the central government, one of the 51 cannot hold an advantage, thou if it must be one, then let it be the most local one as so not to effect the rights of the others.

When one looks at rulings like Row V.S. wade where the court invented the federally protected right to abortion out of thin air, its not hard to imagine what else they might invent.

Ask yourself this one question: Is it realistic to pass a constitutional amendment repealing Row V.S. wade? could we get the needed 38 states to ratify such given the closely decided political clime on that issue?

Without nullification the court is little more then a political tool for one side to unconstitutionally impose its will on the other.

So I’m game for trying your plain 100%, but I’m very doubtful that it is a piratical one.

This comes on top of the fact that the Constitution should be forcefully interpreted as it was when it was written. Amending the constitution does not accomplish that goal it simply rewrites it in hopes that the new writing will be more consistence with the original limitations.

You may be correct that, after 100 years, SCOTUS will twist the meanings of the words into something that was not intended. But that gives the country another 100 years. The alternative is that we continue with the Fed Gov’t having unlimited power including the power to spend the nation into bankruptcy. Let’s not let the perfect drive out the good.

Tony

The wording of the Constitution doesn’t matter if the U.S. Supreme court(A federal government agent) is allowed to be the exclusive judge of it’s meaning and thus the extent of their own power in defining what is under that constitution.

I know this because we have been here before, and that is exactly what has happen. We can amend the constitution until hell freezes over it wont make them(federal government employees) with a vested interest in their own power at the exclusion of our(the people) own and that of our State’s, read the Constitution’s limits on that power and follow it.

If we are to rely on them for that function then we are to not have that function. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment defining what “under” means in the U.S. Constitution?

That won’t work either for the same reason. The situation is not hopeless its simply hopeless when enforced/resolved as you suggest.