Replies

I have been thinking the same thing. I think everyone needs to become familiar with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions written in 1798 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively. They believed that if the central government was the exclusive judge of its limitations under the Constitution, then it would eventually overcome those limits and become more and more powerful and authoritarian. They argued that elections and separation of power would not suffice to limit the government if it could judge its own case regarding constitutionality. As Jefferson wrote, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

The Principles of '98 would allow individual states to judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees, and could refuse to enforce laws it deemed unconstitutional. Unfortunately, no other states went along and seven state legislatures formally rejected the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions while three other states expressed disapproval. Several of these states asserted that the federal judiciary, not the states, is the proper forum for interpreting the Constitution. In 1803 the Marbury v. Madison case established the principle of judicial review by the US Supreme Court.

As seen in today's (and many other) US Supreme Court decisions, the restraints on the Federal government have become minimal to nonexistent. Maybe it is time for the Principles of '98 to be formally ensconced in the Constitution. Yes, I know, the 10th Amendment should suffice, but if the arbiter of whether it is sufficient is the US Supreme Court then clearly we need another route. Forget the Tea Party, we need a "Spirit of '98" movement for a constitutional convention to reign in the Federal government.