Why is the Kavanaugh Supreme Court fight so vicious? Because government is too important

That’s the agenda that needs to be directed. Once K is installed and RBG is replaced, a streamlined case objecting to most federal progras NOT outlined in the Constitution needs to make its way quickly to the SC, where it can quickly establish precedence AGAINST the current state of the federal government. The left’s mantra of stare decisis would require its embrace.

They do get what they Vote for.

The problem is the Democrat Elected Representatives have no use for the United States Constitution and the Courts follow their lead by not striking them down.

The Founders knew that for our Constitution to followed, it had to depend on the actions of Moral Men.

99% of the Legislation coming out of DC is Unconstitutional and the GOP is not an innocent Party to it.

"If the federal obeyed the 10th Amendment the progressives would have nothing in the central government, no programs, no giveaways, no hand outs and no regulations."

The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) effectively politically repealed the 10th Amendment (10A) imo.

Here’s the before and after of Supreme Court interpretations of 10A during the FDR Administration. Carefully consider what was left of 10A after FDR-nominated, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices confirmed by the post-17A ratification, mob-controlled Senate got finished with it.

First, 10A in the ratified Constitution.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Next, here’s the reasonable interpretation of 10A by state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in first term of FDR presidency.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

But this is what was left of 10A after misguided FDR had established a state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority, the justices wrongly deciding Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.

"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942

I haven't found any explicit references to the Tenth Amendment or United States v. Butler in the Wickard v. Filburn opinion. Corrections welcome.

Note that Thomas Jefferson had warned us about corrupt judges.

"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

Patriots need to vote Republican ticket imo in the upcoming elections to prevent anti-Trump Democrats from taking RINO seats.

Former top-level government officials who sold uranium to Russia, gave aid and comfort to ISIS or participated in horrific, unspeakable acts are of the mindset that they will need corrupt, bribable or blackmailable justices seated when their case is appealed to the Supreme Court. So Kavanaugh cannot be seated, from this perspective.

Who’s protesting the loudest?

One needs to be cautious about Butler, though.

Look at the discussion about the different views on a1:S8:C1 in the decision.

It represents a fundamental disconnect with the Constitution.

Realize that WHEN Hamilton wrote his report on manufactures he did so AFTER the Ratification of the Constitution and thus after the exercise of the original right (per Marshall) that made the Constitution the Law.

Let me ask you? Was Hamilton’s latter day notion of a more general power to spend what those who Ratified the Constitution agreed to?

When the writers of the Constitution submitted their work to the several States for Ratification they as a legal necessity had to put down their pens an cease to write the Constitution anymore, so that they could submit it to others who had Authourity to Ratify. After they set down their pens writing the Constitution they had a logical and lawful role to play advising those being asked to ratify about the meaning of the text.

What they said at those times were different from what debates were held while the proposed charter was bring written because the writing was done and now they are giving advice about what was written, and not debating the writing.

Before Ratification was a done deal the subject of A1:S8:C1 came up and was addressed, and Madison’s correction to the misconstruction being suggested as possible by the Antifederalist, what Justice Roberts in Butler called a mere tautology, saying:

“Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers.”

It should be noted that BEFORE Ratification Hamilton too said naught to contradict Madison, or to correct the Antifederalist that what they viewed as a likely misconstruction of the language to arrive at more general power for the federal was in fact the intended construction (it is important to note that the Antifederalist implicitly agreed with what Madison wrote, only they were asserting it would be misconstructed ... and indeed Hamilton, rather than correct them or contradict Madison, made so stirring a defense of the absolute nature of the doctrine of delegated powers that he called those who would subvert that men of low character), so I would follow up quoting Justice Roberts by pointing out how unfaithful he was!

There are two senses of the word tautology. A mere tautology is one which adds no meaning. But a tautology that is a self referencing truth, a truism, that establishes meaning in the first place is no “mere tautology”!

Roberts acted as if Madison said nothing of importance rather than repeating a truism establishing the meaning ...and that the meaning he indicated was so well understood that it was on its own able to refute the protests of the Antifederalist.

It was after this that Ratification was complete, as per Marshall there were principals so established that they were to be permanent. What are these other than what those with the original right can be said to have agreed to?

(Which, btw, is much easier to determine than debated over debates during writing.)

So when Roberts says that Hamilton — writing after Ratification and contradicting what he and others had said to those with the original right before Ratification — was correct in his construction notwithstanding who does he acknowledge was the Sovereign to make Law?

Is it those who Ratified?

Or Hamilton that he should alter the permanent principals they established with new ones of his own liking?

In a wedding there often comes a point when the minister asks if there are any who have reason why there should be no marriage, and if so they should ask now or forever hold their peace.

Ratification is like a marriage of the States, and once Ratified there were no “oh, and also” moments because the Sovereign power had acted.

Like some unruly wedding guest badmouthing the bride at the party Hamilton spoke out of turn, lawlessly, as if he could just keep on adding margin notes to the Constitution.

It should be no surprise then that the modern Court, following suit, has scribbled in and imposed its own proverbial margin notes and demanded everyone looking into the Constitution to see their opinions and close their eyes to the Law.

That is exactly like what John Marshall in his day, in Marbury, said was worse than a solemn mockery

I would also point out that Roberts ignored the perfect validity of justifying clauses within sentences as used in the English language. These too are not “mere tautology”.

“Has anyone found out what was in the envelope Sheila Jackson Lee slipped to Ford’s lawyer?”

Only Ford’s lawyer, (who worked for Obama in the past) and perhaps Sheila Jackson Lee, know the answer to that!