[JRandomFreeper]

Both Dems and Pubs ignore the Constitution and the laws now. How will adding amendments help with that?

/johnny

[VRW Conspirator]

How will adding amendments help with that?

You are right, Johnny. I see it as rallying points for one. Without which we are just fighting a defensive retreat. Also, as creating obstacles where someone might be able to sue in court (some courts) to obstruct the tyranny. The statists are moving the ball down the field. How do we move it back? Otherwise, I am reminded of the punch line to an old joke, "Doctor says you are going to die"-The patient is terminal.

[MrB]

Our only hope for liberty lies in the states.
The states have to, at some point, say “not here”.

[supercat]

How will adding amendments help with that?

It could help if the amendments restate the purpose for having a Constitution in the first place: to allow people to distinguish between lawful government actions which they should abide and lawless actions which they should resist. An amendment which explicitly specifies that certain government actions are lawless authorizes citizens to use any means necessary, including deadly force, to stop them, would likely serve as a strong deterrent to such actions even if courts would be loath to take action against them.

Another thing that would be helpful would be some clarifications regarding the relationship between the supremacy clause and court decisions. Among other things:

1. Not every illegitimate action justifies a remedy
2. The fact that an dubious action is found not to justify a remedy does not imply that the action was legitimate
3. For someone to act legitimately on behalf of government, the person must have a good-faith belief that their actions are in fact legitimate (and not merely that they would not be found so patently illegitimate as to justify action against them).
4. It's not possible for a system of laws to anticipate every possible scenario; courts must sometimes use their own judgment and invent remedies which are not explicitly provided for by law. Such cases should have limited value as precedent, however: not only should their use be limited to situations which are not adequately provided for by existing laws, but a finding that one of the parties deliberately acted to create situations which existing laws can't handle should be considered prima facie evidence that the party in question was acting in bad faith, and would consequently justify ruling against that party even if the precedent would otherwise seem to favor them.

It's too bad courts pay so little heed to the question of whether people were acting in good faith. An honest evaluation of such issues would go a long way toward avoiding the kinds of problem scenarios where judges have no alternative but to invent remedies.