For many years, the Supreme Court has been one of the primary mechanisms by which the federal government has expanded its power and jurisdiction. The Court has interpreted the Constitution to allow Congress and the executive to control nearly every aspect of American life, and self-governance has declined simultaneously.
Americans were hoping that President Trump's recent appointments, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, would inject some much-needed limited-government reforms into constitutional jurisprudence. Unfortunately, as constitutional scholar Prof. Rob Natelson explained in a recent article, that hope is looking less and less likely.
The Supreme Court term just over certainly confirmed what I wrote shortly after it started: The constant refrain that the current bench is a “conservative Supreme Court” with a “conservative majority” is flat wrong.
The New York Times has been a major offender in mischaracterizing the court as “conservative.” But now the evidence is so decisive that even the Times is admitting the truth.
When politicians and the media refer to a “conservative judge”, they know, or should know, how most people understand the phrase: He or she produces politically conservative results — favoring religious and other traditional values, individual freedom including property rights, state power over federal power, and a strong national defense (including border enforcement). By contrast, people think of a “liberal judge” as one who reaches politically liberal results: social liberalism, government control of the economy, federal over state power, and leniency toward liberal voting groups.
If we adopt these definitions, then for every major “conservative” victory this term, you can cite a “liberal” one. Moreover, some of the “conservative” victories were pretty limited.
Consider some paired cases. The court granted conservatives a victory in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n by allowing a large Christian cross to remain on public ground. But the victory was limited because the court refused to overturn the Lemon test, against which conservatives have inveighed for many years. The court also refused Justice Clarence Thomas’s invitation to withdraw from establishment-of-religion cases involving state and local governments.
Moreover, the partial conservative victory in American Legion was offset by Dept. of Commerce v. New York, which ensured that a citizenship question will not be on the 2020 census.
Click here to read the full article.
Turns out, "conservative" judges are just like "conservative" politicians. They're happy to toe the party line until they reach D.C., but once they're in office, it's anyone's guess what they'll do.
That's why we need a solution to federal overreach that doesn't rely on any of the three branches of the federal government. We need a solution that originates with the people, is controlled by the states, and has the power to reform the balance of power in our country.
We need an Article V Convention of States.
A Convention of State is called and controlled by the states and has the power to propose constitutional amendments. Only constitutional amendments can reverse the last 100 years of judicial activism, and only constitutional amendments can limit the power of federal agencies along with the federal judiciary.
We shouldn't be waiting with bated breath for salvation from our so-called conservative Supreme Court. We should be taking matters into our own hands, and we can do it with a Convention of States.
