ahh, the argument of a tyrant! "things have been wrong, and these unelected unaccountable judges on the court never were supposed to rule over us, but since it's been like that for a long time, you might as well just submit"

well done - King George would have loved you on his side...!

Can you deny that the Supreme Court is authoritative on the Constitution?

John Bingham, your belief that the Constitution means what the USSC majority says it means is the popular, but wrong understanding of Constitutional limits on the USSC's powers.

More specifically, when state legislatures still understood their great constitutional powers, state lawmakers knew that all they had to do to "overturn" an unpopular USSC decision was to exercise their Article V power to amend the Constitution. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of state legislatures overturning USSC decisions.

Sadly, until state lawmakers get a grip on their Article V powers and their 10th Amendment protected state sovereignty again, yes, the USSC will be calling the shots.

The question, John (a creative screen name, indeed!) would go back to you - where in the Constitution is the federal government given such authority? Avoid using the standards, as they have been covered quite a bit here over the years - the preamble - no. The General Welfare clause - no. And it definitely is not commerce as the founders understood it.

I am not convinced with the arguments that it is unconstitutional, however, because SCOTUS, as I'm sure you know, has interpreted the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause very broadly. Even if the Commerce Clause has been interpreted incorrectly according to the original meaning, the General Welfare Clause, according to Hamilton, granted the power to spend revenues on those objects that are not connected to an enumerated power, insofar as they provide for the "general welfare."

So who was right, Hamilton or Madison? The Supreme Court obviously sided with Hamilton, but I'm guessing you disagree. I'm more convinced of the "practical" reasons for not having national standards, because the Constitution does not always prohibit things that are bad ideas. You seem to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with your own personal policy preferences. That's not to say that you are wrong, but Hamilton was also a Founder but you seem to disregard him.

Or the other question - does the constitution mean what all the founders said it meant (even Hamilton, until he changed his mind well after the fact), or does it mean what the supreme court says it means - until it changes its mind?

In fact, Hamilton's view was considered a joke at the time - it only regained and resurfaced nearly 150 years later.

John Bingham, you need to study Hamilton. He was a pro-big federal government, bait-and-switch scam artist whose signature on the Constitution meant nothing.

Regarding the SCOTUS's interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses, beware of the following. Modern interpretations of these clauses, actually perversions of them, came from puppet justices nominated by FDR, an enemy of the Constitution IMO, particularly where state sovereignty is concerned.

The two cases that broadly interpreted the General Welfare Clause were Helvering v Davis and United States v Butler. The opinions in these cases were delivered by Owen Roberts and Benjamin Cardozo, both of which were appointed by Hoover, not FDR. These were not "puppet justices nominated by FDR".

Since you mentioned Justice Owen Roberts, please consider the following. As you said, Justice Roberts was nominated by Hoover. But what you are overlooking is, that although Roberts was initially regarded as a conservative, he ultimately showed his true colors by succumbing to the corruption of FDR's growing showcase of pro-big federal government justices.

Roberts' turning to the dark side is evidenced by his reputation for being a swing vote. In fact, Roberts' assimilation by the dark side is shown by the following. To begin with, he initially respected state sovereignty as evidenced by his statement about the 10th Amendment in Butler opinion:

"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. 18 The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden." --United States v. Butler, 1936.

On the other hand, consider that Owen later agreed with other justices in Wickard v. Filburn where justices scandalously watered down 10th A. protected state sovereignty with the following statement.

"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 in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

And by watering down state sovereignty along with FDR’s puppet justices, not only did RINO Roberts disagree with himself concerning his statement about the 10th A. in Butler, but I have yet to find a reference to Butler in Wickard. So FDR's justices were seemingly trying to cover their tracks concerning the recognition of state sovereignty evidenced by the opinions of earlier cases.

Also, note that regardless that Justice Jackson indicated in Wickard that Congress can regulate intrastate commerce if an issue significantly affects interstate commerce, Thomas Jefferson had clearly noted that state legislatures exclusively have the power to regulate intrastate commerce.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.a...

So FDR-influenced justices burned the bridge to state sovereignty in Wickard by ignoring not only Roberts’ words about the 10th A. in the Butler opinion, but also Jefferson’s writings on the Commerce Clause.

The bottom line is that the USSC's wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause is blatant evidence of corrupt justices making special-interest perversions of the Constitution, IMO.

Finally, not only were corrupt justices perverting the Constitution, but consider this. Not only did the federal Senate not lift a finger to protect state interests by killing bills that interfered with intrastate commerce, but state lawmakers made no attempt that I know of to “overturn” Wickard, for example, by making an amendment to undo the Senate’s neglect, an amendment clarifying the Commerce Clause in the state’s favor. Corrections welcome.

What a mess! :^(

They hold their office during good behavior and can be impeached, but the people can not directly remove Justices from office, let alone for failure to uphold the "intent" of the Constitution. Where is that in the Constitution?

There is a process for impeaching a Justice, but so far in American History only Samuel Chase was actually impeached in the House, and he was later acquitted in the Senate. In reality, Justices stay in their positions for life or until they voluntarily resign, granted they "hold their offices in good behavior".

The practicality of removing Justices and overturning a Supreme Court decision on the subject of General Welfare is slim, mostly because a majority of law makers in Congress agree with this broad interpretation.