Where is this prohibited in the Constitution? Answer: It isn't.
and which is accountable to nobody, has used the interstate commerce clause to seize powers not granted to it or to the Congress.
Powers not EXPRESSLY granted. But the Federalists intentionally rejected expressly delegated powers, and chose instead implied powers, including anything "necessary and proper."
There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting this. In fact, it seems designed to be this way. Not that it's a surprise:
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.From the 11th essay of "Brutus" taken from The New-York Journal, January 31, 1788.
Thank you, again, for confirming that our government (whatever the good intentions of its founders) is a functional tyranny.
It's a lot better than a totalitarian, communist state, but it's not the limited small government fairy tale either. Big government is baked right into the Constitution. Hell, the whole point of it was to create a bigger, stonger government, to consolidate the colonies into one nation, and to subdue the power of the state governments. They achieved their objectives.
Where is this prohibited in the Constitution? Answer: It isn't.
Of course not. I never said otherwise. I simply called it what it is.
Where in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted its power as final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning? Answer: Nowhere. John Marshall simply seized that power when the opportunity presented itself. The Constitution died that day.
You may comfort yourself that we aren't (yet) under the bootheel of "a totalitarian, communist state", if you like. It matters little. What we are under is the arbitrary rule-at-whim tyranny of the completely unaccountable. That it could get worse (and probably will), and that other countries have (had) it worse, is a discussion of degree, not kind.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land", applies to more than just the imperial presidency.