by Connor Boyack, Utah Tenth Amendment Center On August 23, 1958, 46 Chief Justices from the Supreme Courts of the several states gathered together in Pasadena, California. The event drawing their presence was the Conference of Chief Justices, a regular forum for the highest judges in each state to meet and discuss important issues. Their [...]
Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publicly argued the merits of rulings based on social justice over rule-of-law. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?
In 1937, the Supreme Court abandoned its attempt to set limits to the Commerce Clause power and to enforce theTenth Amendment. No longer would the Court be in the business of drawing a line between the federal and state authority, as it had been intended to do. Instead, it would allow Congress to do almost anything it wanted to do on the basis of the Commerce Clause.
Let us be clear at the outset that federal involvement in health care (except in a few isolated instances, such as federal employee benefits) certainly violates the Constitution as that document was originally understood.
The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they generally start with Marbury.
In this podcast, Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, and more…
the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored.
If asked, who has the final say in our government on the meaning of the Constitution, most people would say, the Supreme Court, but it this right?
To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy†has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era.
Where the Constitution needs to be changed, it should be amended through the process provided in the Constitution, not through a judicial edict.
© 2013 Tenth Amendment Center. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
Recent Comments