The greatest omission of the founders was the lack an enforcement amendment that empowered the States to maintain the federal government within the confines of the Constitution. If the States had had that oversight of the feds from the beginning, the Supreme Court could not have "interpreted" the Constitution to suit the ideologies or agendas of Presidents, appointed officials or the Congress contrary to the intent of the Framers.

Any war that our young men fought after the War of 1812 can be shown to have been the result of Presidential scheming. Each and every after war after 1812 was the result of the presidential sociopathic demagogues whose fantasies, egos, ideologies, greed, dreams of grandeur or party agendas allowed them to draw America into the cauldron and slaughterhouse of war. An oversight amendment may have prevented all that.

George Washington warned of entangling alliances that would suck the new nation into Europe's constant wars, fought between monarchical sociopaths always seeking some new territory or advantage over the European mad men or women of other royal houses.

It is time for the people to demand that their state governments stand up to the federal government and rein in the insanity that rages in Washington. This amendment will re-establish state sovereignty and its proper function as intermediary between the national government and the citizens over whom the federal government should has no power, except as participants in disputes in interstate matters. Prior to the "Civil War" ( I prefer the more correct, War of Northern Aggression) and the Fourteenth Amendment we were citizen's of our states, not of the nation.

Constitutional Commission Amendment

Section 1.  The Constitutional Commission shall settle questions presented by the several states concerning the constitutionality of measures or actions taken by the government of the United States.

Section 2.  The Constitutional Commission shall be composed of one Commissioner from each state, elected every second year by the people thereof from two candidates chosen by the state legislature, and the electors chosen by the state legislature, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature; each Commissioner shall have one vote. 

Section 3.  No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner; nor shall any person be eligible for the office who shall not have attained the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, and been nine years a resident of that state for which he shall be chosen.  No person shall be elected to the office of Commissioner more than four times. 

Section 4.  When vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess in the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall choose two candidates to present to the people to fill the vacancy. 

Section 5. The Constitutional Commission shall assemble it least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day in January, unless it shall appoint a different day. The Constitutional Commission shall choose its Chairman and other officers. The Commission shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members, and three-fourths of the Commissioners shall constitute a quorum to do business.  The Commission may determine the rules of its proceedings.  The commission shall keep a journal of the proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. 

Section 6.  No Commissioner shall receive compensation for his services out of the Treasury of the United States.  No Commissioner shall, during his time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States. 

Section 7.  Whenever the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission shall receive petitions from one-fifth of the legislatures of the several states requesting a ruling on the constitutionality of a specific measure or action of the government of the United States, the Commission shall convene.  The act or measure of the national government shall be void and no force if three-fourths of the Commissioners present vote against its constitutionality. 

Section 8. The Constitutional Commission shall not sit as a Convention as prescribed in Article V of the Constitution of the United States. 

Used with the permission of the author from the book:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
By William J. Watkins, Jr.
An Independent Institute Book
Published by Palgrave McMillan

It is not a lot to ask to want to see about giving the 3rd branch of the federal government a chance to right the wrong of the other 2 branches before moving on to straight nullification of the offending act. That is if you want to give the same Federal court the benefit of the doubt, a position admittedly not supported by their history or interest.

That being said the State is of right not to wait and assert it rights and the rights of its people at any time before(preemptively), in-between, or after.

Part of the problem is the 17th Amendment. I suspect the Senators would not be in favor of repealing it. Perhaps that could be a litmus issue put to every candidate for Senator. Tea Parties together with the TAC could make this a rallying issue.

Great article. I'm going to become a Principles of 98 Student..

I think the idea of an amendment establishing a Constitutional Review Board (CRB) makes sense if the amendment requires that any law found to be unconstitutional by the CRB must be nullified and abolished. I would further suggest that the CRB be empowered to review and determine the constitutionality of or clarification of previous questionable SCOTUS decisions at the request of X number of States. Such reviewable decisions might include extreme interpretations of the "due process" clause, "general welfare" clause ,"interstate commerce" clause, etc.
Question in my mind is how to get Congress to initiate such an amendment without the States calling for a Constitutional Convention, which I think most would agree is not the way to go.

Yep. Or as Both Madison and Hamilton said in "The federalist", no man is allowed to judge in his own cause.

Or as Isaiah 29:16 says: "...shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he hath no understanding?"

I'm a lawyer but my training prepared me to research and interpret CASE LAW (aka judge-made law). This skill is not needed to read and interpret the US Constitution which was primarily written by a non-lawyer and intended to be read and understood by non-lawyers.

The truth is, contrary to Marbury v. Madison, we don't need/want the US Supreme Court to read and interpret the US Constitution. It's turned into a mess largely because of the case law approach (aka "precedent") where we get farther and farther from the original meaning. At this point, you can make a case for virtually ANYTHING if you just read enough cases. I used to say to new law clerks in federal bankruptcy law, "If you haven't found a case that supports your position, you haven't finished your research."

I've slowly come to the conclusion that the omission of a method for determining the constitutionality of laws was a mistake in the drafting of the US Constitution and that it is worthy of repair with an amendment establishing some kind of a Constitutionality Review Board (CRB).

Here's a stab:

Such an amendment should specify that, to the maximum extent possible, the original intent of the drafters and ratifiers must control all such constitutionality decisions by first referring to the US Constitution itself. Only if a majority of the CRB members agree there is an ambiguity, reference may be had to supporting, contemporaneous, extant documents.

The majority decision of the CRB controls and must be clearly enunciated in a written opinion which is composed of X members from each state, chosen in whatever manner the state wishes for a term of X year(s).

A law can be certified to the CRB for review upon application by X governors. The CRB's decision is final and can be enforced against all states but, of course, can be overturned by constitutional amendment or some kind of popular vote.

I probably missed a lot but there it is as a start off the top of my head for those who see some merit in the idea.

Interesting article. Thanks!

I don't understand Gov. Brewer's reasoning... She seems to be arguing that the Light Bulb Bill will take too long to get to a court battle so she vetoed it. That doesn't make any sense to me. Who cares how long it takes to come up or if it EVER comes up in a court battle.

Wouldn't it be better to be consistent? If the Firearm Bill is proper and she signed it, then how can she intellectually and honestly veto the Light Bulb Bill which is patterned after the Firearm Bill?

Am I missing something?

If they really want to push this idea of a court battle, they should pass a law that says that ANYTHING made and sold in AZ is not subject to federal regulation. That should get the ball rolling!

Two things must be understood in regard to individuals and the constitution. 1.As Justice Joseph Story points out in his "commentaries", the colonists regarded common law as their birthright. IOW, it cannot be taken away by any law established by Comnstitutional authority.

2. The 5th Amendment tells us that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. "Due Process" also defined by Justice Story, is COMMON LAW.

The Supreme Court, created by the Constitution, cannot lawfully decide substantive due process. It remains to the people.

In my reading of Article lll. of the Constitution, combined with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the final arbiters of Constitutionality can ONLY reside with the States. As Derek Sheriff says, the Supreme Court is just a part of the federal government and nowhere does the Constitution empower the federal government to be final arbiter over the constitutionality of its own legislation.

I believe a coalition of 25 or more State governors and/or attorneys general need to publicly press the members of Congress from their States to initiate an amendment detailing the manner in which the States can collectively rule on the constitutionality of a piece of federal legislation, once, say two or more, states nullify that piece of legislation.