The senate would never agree to again become appointed, and the left would endlessly holler that it was “anti-democratic”, with most people not understanding the issue.
In fact, the left is still at it, now trying to attack the electoral college in the same way they began to attack the appointed senate, by calling it “anti-democratic”. A few blue states have even banded together with the idea that all their electoral votes would be given to the national candidate with the most total votes.
Another issue is that while we see congress engaged in anti-state activities, as well as the POTUS doing so, what is not seen is what rogue federal judges do as well.
A great example is the giving of civil rights to corporations, which was done, of all things, by a Supreme Court reporter in the time of Lincoln. After a hearing, he approached the Chief Justice of the time to ask him if the court meant to give corporations civil rights. The Chief Justice said that is what the members of the court think, so the court reporter put that out as a commentary to all federal judges, that corporations now had civil rights.
Since that time, this idea now dominates business law, and is an issue in vast amounts of litigation. But it was not passed by congress or signed by the president.
My point is that federal judges effectively create federal law just as much as does congress. They appoint Special Masters to dictate to state legislatures how much money they must appropriate for something the judge wants, usually funding of education.
They also judicially prevent states from carrying out their own laws, like the death penalty, because the federal judge doesn’t *like* it, personally.
In any event, putting the Second Court of the United States just beneath the SCOTUS would give the states something that woefully was omitted in the constitution—a pruning mechanism to cut the federal government down to size in an orderly and peaceful manner.
A perpetual pruning mechanism, so that every castle some president and congress want to build can just as easily be torn down if the states do not approve of it.
???? The whole purpose of Article V is to go around our oppressors in Washington. They don't have a choice.
I understand your subsequent points. There is no guarantee of success. FWIW, Levin's amendments would subject Scotus decisions to repeal upon three fifths vote of the states.
I also know that most state legislators are part time politicians. They have lives outside of the political realm. Many are businessmen who know the horrible effects of our consolidated national government. They have pride in their states and chafe at the endless outrages coming from DC. Unlike our oppressors, state legislators cannot create money and actually have to deal more or less with budgets.
I think it is shortsighted to not realize the contempt our state legislators have for DC. The time to utilize the power we reserved to ourselves in 1787 is now.