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! :^(

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.

Your argument that we are stuck with the this long-held view of the US Constitution reminds me of the story about the cook who always cut and discarded both ends of the roast before cooking it because it had always been done that way in his family. He didn't bother to find out that it all started that way in his family because his great grandmother's pot was too small for the roast!

Slavery was permitted for a long time. Does that make it ok?

What if something is just plain wrongly decided, John?

Sometimes, you need the courage to speak out and say that something is amiss and take action to change it if you want to improve your life. That's what this web site is all about.

As for practical arguments, what do you propose?

My answer is to elect people like Ron Paul and get rid of the DOE (for starters) and, as necessary, amend the US Constitution to straighten out some of the crap that's been screwed up so badly like the Federal Reserve and national debt.

Other practical solutions have been proposed and implemented as recounted on this web site in great detail. For example, the FFA, the sovereignty resolutions and the real ID revolts come to mind.

This very article is proposing that people reject the latest scheme to centralize all US education. I completely agree with Texas and Alaska's approach (skip the meeting) and hope everyone will communicate this sentiment to their representatives.

The main benefit of this web site is to get people to start to question the authority of the feds over every thing on the planet. Once people understand that THEY are the source of all power, they may start to see things differently and, hopefully, will stop acting like sheep who just accept everything they're led into by their so-called leaders.

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.

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.