Time will tell.

NOT by the words being “interpreted” to mean the opposite of what they were meant to say.

However, for those who still reject “originalism” (i.e. that the Constitution means what it says), there are three recent rulings by the Supreme Court saying that the so called “commerce clause” can not be taken as justification for X, Y, Z, Federal government power extentions.

So “precident”/ “case law” is against Comrade Barack Obama also.

However, he will ignore that – and if the Surpreme Court rules against him he will denounce the Court (as he did over freedom of speech – which he, of course, opposes).

Sorry but the voters proving they were not racists by voting for Barack Obama (which is the main reason the media gave for voting for him – it would be “historic” and so on) has had and will have a heavy cost.

Time to vote him and his Comrades out – however much the “mainstream” media (and the “education system”) declares that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist.

I do not care that he is black (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jay Parker, Star Jones …… – all black and all are my brothers and sisters in liberty), what I object to about Barack Obama is that he is RED.

OY !

At the risk (but subject to the rewards) of being dubded an “originalist,” the designation “the United States,” which appears throughout the Constitution clearly identifies an entity (an aggregate) created by the relationships agreed to by the representatives of the electorates of the several states.

It does not mean the “government” (see, the term: “the Government of the United States” as used in the wordings of the document).

As a concept, it is a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States lists the specific powers of the Congress – the things it may do if it wishes to do.

For example, it may fund a navy (it does not have to), or build post roads (ditto).

The PURPOSE of these powers is the “common defence and general welfare” of the United States.

There is no “general welfare power” (in the sense of Congess being allowed to spend money on anything it considers for the general welfare) – in fact the powers that Congress has are listed.

One can attack the 18th century practice of giving a preamble explaining the purpose for which powers are laid out – but to confuse the PURPOSE of the powers (the common defence and general welfare) with the powers themselves is absurd. It means that someone has read a line – but not the words that follow after it.

“The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is” bullcrap, the Supreme Court has no “amending power”, the Constitution is what it is, and many Presidents have vetoed Bills as unconstitutional without even asking the opinion of the Supreme Court. And where the Supreme Court has given a ruling which is clearly insane (as with Dred Scot – which meant that a slave taken to a free State remained a slave) its rulings have been (quite rightly) tossed out.

“The Supreme Court defers to Congress” – often it does not.

All this Supreme Court business is priestcraft anyway. The Constitution of the United States and the other writings of the Founders are not some hard to understnad mystic work – they are fairly straightforward.

A jury should have no great difficulty hearing the arugments of both sides in a dispute and checking them against the text.

The “Law of the Land” is only what any dominant electorate will support and enforce.

They no longer choose to rely on the Constitution to provide the totality of the rules for interactions between the functions of governments and themselves. They look instead to what actions will yield the (correctly or incorrectly) perceived objectives of their immediate interests.