Insight: no previous Court can constrain any future Court.
Since no previous Court can constrain any future Court, that is why one of the essential issues that is addressed by an Article V Convention of the States must be how to restrain a Court that runs amok.
In my own state, we have “retention” elections for high court justices. The problem with lifetime tenure is that should a justice become hostile to liberty and the Constitution over time, as long as they don’t commit overt criminal acts the means to remove them from office present too high a bar.
We also must give the House a means of overriding a decision by the Court. Because this power should be used sparingly, I would propose a high super-majority. But the Senate no longer represents the interests of the States. The House is the body that is closest to the will of the People.
The government has grown to resent the chains of the Constitution and has engineered workarounds and circumventions. There are fewer and fewer peaceful means remaining to be exercised to restore the federal government to its right balance of relationship to the States and to the People. As it states in the Declaration of Independence, “Whenever Any Form of Government Becomes Destructive To These Ends,
It Is The Right of the People to Alter Or To Abolish It,
And To Institute New Government.”
We can do this the easy way or the hard way.
I respectfully disagree.
Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution by state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices should not trump previous clarifications of constitutional clauses by state sovereignty-respecting justices whose clarifications that are based on the Founding States' intentions for a clause.
And if the states don’t like the original intention for a clause then the states can amend the Constitution.