[Jack Black]

I posted this on another thread today. It is slightly OT but goes to the general point of the futility of worrying about stuff like this.

The Constitution is a quaint anachronism, like the 13 star flag. It long ago ceased to have any effect on our polity. In 1913 the income tax was passed, Constitutional norms were adherred to. Yet at the same time the Federal Reserve Bank was put into place dispite Constitutional prohibitions on it. FDR made clear his impatience with this anachornism and ignored it for the most part. His standing army is with us to this day, and when not busy fighting foreign foes is occassionally called up to deal with domestic ones, like those religious fanatics in Texas a few years ago. While the ammendment process was used to make booze illegal it was ignored when a new hemp and opium prohibition was ushered in. Now the FedGov controls every aspect of life (down to the size of toilet tanks) and apparently all this is permitted via the "interstate commerce clause" or "the leaving breathing Constitution" interpretation or by the simple expediant of putting leftist traitors and idiots like Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

Face it, the time to whine about "unconstitionality" of the huge superstructure of law, force and control that is our government was a long time ago. To do so now is an interesting parlor game buy ain't gonna change a damn thing.

[MrB]

I don't know that it's futile.

You can put this before people that demand unconstitutional spending programs, and maybe you can get some of them to doubt, or maybe go do the research themselves.

At the minimum, you can get them to admit that they don't support the Constitutional limits on the government.

Madison said "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

With all this historical evidence about what our government must be to be legitimate, you can either get people to think, or force them to declare the Constitution "an anachronism" as you said.

In the case of the latter, they have to admit that they support the "distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" that Madison spoke of.

[tacticalogic]

Now the FedGov controls every aspect of life (down to the size of toilet tanks) and apparently all this is permitted via the "interstate commerce clause" or "the leaving breathing Constitution" interpretation or by the simple expediant of putting leftist traitors and idiots like Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

Face it, the time to whine about "unconstitionality" of the huge superstructure of law, force and control that is our government was a long time ago. To do so now is an interesting parlor game buy ain't gonna change a damn thing.

"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas