The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Does the Supreme Court

(See in situ)

Does the Supreme Court

really have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws? It is my understanding that the Marshall court assumed this power for itself contrary to the intent of the Framers.

We ought to be suspicious that a branch of the federal government can determine the extent of its own powers.

Certainly the Court has in effect legislated in many instances rather than adjudicated. To rule that a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption affects interstate trade and therefore can be regulated is one of the more ludicrous examples of judicial activism.

Then consider many of the arguably unconstitutional institutions and federal programs that are in existence that most of us take for granted, namely: the Federal Reserve System and the fact that we no longer use gold and silver as money; Social Security; Medicare; and the Part D drug plan.

How many federal departments and agencies are unconstitutional?

I believe Dr. Paul said that some 80% of government spending is for unconstitutional programs.

Some are advocating a balanced budget amendment. This is a Band-aid approach that would ensconce all the existing unconstitutional programs that are now funded by the federal budget. How about following the Constitution instead?