It’s broken. We can argue about the reasons why, perhaps; my own belief is that the fault lies not in the document but in our own failure to uphold its promise. Either way, the fact remains: it’s broken.
Wickard .v. Filburn was a raw theft of that power from the states by the Federal Government. It should have been met with the immediate refusal by the States to acquiesce, if necessary backed by the Governors calling up their National Guard contingencies as there never was and still does not exist today jurisdiction in the Supreme Court on the matter. The substance of this case was that Filburn was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The entire cycle of life of said wheat was contained within the boundaries of one state. The Government claimed that because he grew it he wouldn’t have to buy as much wheat on the market, that wheat was traded both nationally and internationally in the marketplace and thus his lack of need to make a purchase through his entirely intrastate actions meant it had jurisdiction. In short the Supreme Court claimed that there was no limit on any act of the Federal government, ever, since any action or inaction by a citizen always results in some change in one’s economic activity. The mere act of taking a crap leads to “interstate commerce” under this standard and thus the Federal Government can regulate where, how and when you may do so or even tax same; you might buy toilet paper, if you use water to flush or wash your hands you might cause your local government to consume chlorine shipped across a state line to sanitize said water, etc.
The Court ripped up the entire Constitution with this decision — and thus far, since 1942, for more than 75 years, it has gotten away with it.
Then there are decisions where the litigants lied before the court. Miller, the seminal empowering decision for federal gun control, was one such instance. Not only was Miller unrepresented (he was broke and nobody showed up to argue his side of the case) but the US Government directly lied to the court both orally and in written form about the lack of military application of the weapon Miller was arrested for possessing (a short-barrel shotgun), claiming it had no legitimate military or militia purpose despite having previously purchased a weapon of almost-exactly the same design, form and function by the thousands for use in trench warfare during WWI.
Roe .v. Wade was also a deliberate lie. The claim was that Roe was raped. We know this was a lie because Roe later disclosed same. While that was not the foundation of the decision it clearly played into the sentiment on the court and it was not a mistake it was a lie.
Perjury is supposed to be one of the highest offenses in any civilized nation because in every single case it perverts justice, yet in neither of those cases was any subsequent notice given to same nor were the judgments vacated. Congress could address this but has refused to even discuss it. There are dozens of similar instances and in exactly zero of those events has a litigant ever faced justice for having done so nor has any Supreme Court decision been summarily tossed on that basis even when the lie is later admitted by the litigants or facutally proved, as was the case in both Roe and Miller.
We have a framework for not only our government but for changing how it works. The problem is that you can no longer find it in the many linear feet of law and regulation directly contrary to the limits on power in the Constitution and nobody — utterly nobody — will do a damn thing about it.
No, a “Convention of States” will not address this.
Because the highest law in the land already addresses all of it and said law is routinely and outrageously ignored without one scintilla of consequence attaching to any government agency or employee who does so — ever — even when they perjure themselves while under oath.
There is utterly no reason to believe, until and unless that highest law of the land is enforced, which will only happen when the people demand it be enforced, that any such event will mean anything as whatever such a “Convention” produces will also be ignored unless it is backed up with a credible threat of force.
Why do we need a “Convention” to enforce what already exists?
Lots more emphasis throughout, which I didn’t transcribe more of because…well, there’s a LOT of it, okay? Denninger tends to do that, and I ain’t saying he’s wrong to, mind. Probably best just to click on over and read all of it.