But here\u2019s what few people realize:\u00a0The intensity of our division springs from a federal government operating far beyond the limits of the Constitution<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 fueling a fight for control over powers that were never supposed to exist at the national level.<\/p>\n To put it another way,\u00a0if the federal government were confined to its actual granted authorities, federal elections would be of little interest<\/strong>\u00a0to the general public, because the outcome would be largely irrelevant to their everyday lives.<\/p>\n America\u2019s founders drafted the Constitution with great trepidation. Having just escaped British tyranny, the people of\u00a0the separate states that would comprise the proposed union were wary of centralizing too much power<\/strong>\u00a0at the federal level, and thus sowing the seeds of a new tyranny.<\/p>\n They therefore set out to create a federal government to which the states delegated only certain limited powers, with all other subjects of governance reserved to the states.<\/p>\n Those powers \u2014 only 18 of them \u2014 are listed, one by one, in\u00a0Article I, Section 8<\/a>\u00a0of the Constitution. They include such things as the power to raise armies, maintain a navy, declare war, borrow money, coin money, establish punishments for counterfeiters and pirates, set standards of weights and measures, secure patents and establish post offices.<\/p>\n Reassuring those who were considering the enormously consequential decision of whether to ratify the Constitution, James Madison\u00a0wrote<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cThe powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite<\/strong>. [Federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce\u2026The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To win over those would-be ratifiers who still feared the proposed federal government would undercut state sovereignty and infringe individual liberties, ten amendments were drafted \u2014 the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment codified Madison\u2019s previous assurance about the division of authorities between the federal and state governments:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We arrive then at a hard fact:\u00a0Today\u2019s sprawling federal government, which involves itself in almost every aspect of daily American life, is almost entirely unconstitutional.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n To rattle off just a random fistful of the federal government\u2019s unauthorized undertakings and entities\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014\u00a0brace yourself<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 there is zero constitutional authority for the Social Security, Medicare, federal drug prohibitions, the Small Business Administration, crop subsidies, the Department of Labor, automotive fuel efficiency standards, climate regulations, the Federal Reserve, union regulation, housing subsidies, the Department of Agriculture, workplace regulations, the Department of Education, federal student loans, the Food and Drug Administration, food stamps, unemployment insurance or light bulb regulations. Even that sampling doesn\u2019t begin to fully account for the scope of the unsanctioned activity.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t let your affinity for any of those enterprises short-circuit your intellectual honesty: Even if you view some of them as benign, that doesn\u2019t render them constitutional.\u00a0<\/strong>And if you\u2019ve ever invoked the Constitution to spotlight a different kind of government overreach, it would be hypocritical to nod approvingly when it\u2019s violated in ways where you deem the result beneficial.<\/p>\n So\u00a0how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 with a federal government wielding powers that are now \u201cnumerous and indefinite\u201d rather than being \u201cfew and defined\u201d?<\/p>\n Much of the current state of affairs has been driven by\u00a0the Supreme Court\u2019s extreme and expansive interpretations\u00a0<\/strong>of certain clauses of the Constitution. Among the most significant are the General Welfare and Commerce clauses.<\/p>\n The General Welfare Clause, found at the start of Article 1, Section 8, says:<\/p>\n The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and\u00a0general welfare<\/strong>\u00a0of the United States\u2026<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Embedded in a clause focused on the power to tax,\u00a0the words \u201cgeneral welfare\u201d were meant to ensure that Congress\u2019s taxation and spending would be confined to purposes that were broadly beneficial<\/strong>, rather than catering to narrow or localized interests.<\/p>\n The clause\u2019s language was copied from the Articles of Confederation, where, as Madison\u00a0explained<\/a>, \u201cit was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.\u201d Indeed, he said, it was copied for the very reason that its prior use and understanding would hopefully minimize the risk of it being misinterpreted as a grant of power.<\/p>\n It flies in the face of reason that the drafters of the Constitution would take pains to carefully list the Congress\u2019s specific authorities, yet simultaneously say Congress could also do anything it thinks generally beneficial.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Countering those who sought to interpret the clause that way, Thomas Jefferson\u00a0wrote<\/a>, \u201cTo consider the\u2026phrase\u2026as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.\u201d<\/p>\n Clearly, based on context and history,\u00a0those two words, general welfare, do not bestow an authority. Indeed, they\u2019re present to\u00a0limit<\/em>\u00a0an authority\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 the power to tax and spend.<\/p>\n The forces seeking to reshape the federal government by exploiting those two words were held at bay, but only for so long. In 1937,\u00a0the Supreme Court used the imaginatively expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause\u00a0<\/strong>to turn back a constitutional challenge to the Social Security Act \u2014 and to set a precedent that would fundamentally change the nature of our federal government.<\/p>\n That decision \u2014\u00a0Helvering v. Davis<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 came as the court was under intense institutional duress.\u00a0<\/strong>Following a wave of high court decisions rightly striking down various pieces of New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, President Roosevelt \u2014 emboldened by his\u00a0massive<\/a>\u00a0landslide reelection in 1936 \u2014 pushed a legislative scheme that would enable him to appoint as many as six more justices to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Whether to derail that plan or to merely cave to the overwhelming\u00a0public opinion<\/a>\u00a0manifested in FDR\u2019s jaw-dropping 523-8 electoral college landslide, the court \u2014 thanks in great part to swing-vote Justice Owen J. Roberts \u2014 began stamping its approval on New Deal legislation, with\u00a0Helvering<\/em>\u00a0among the first.<\/p>\n Fittingly for a ruling that eviscerated limited government in America,\u00a0Helvering<\/em>\u2019s very\u00a0language<\/a>\u00a0had its own air of authoritarianism:<\/p>\n \u201cCongress may spend money in aid of the \u2018general welfare.\u2019 There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views.\u00a0We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As if that proclamation didn\u2019t do enough to demolish the concept of limited federal government, the court proceeded to amplify the damage. While acknowledging that determining what falls under \u201cgeneral welfare\u201d requires discretion, the court declared, \u201cthe discretion\u2026is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress.\u201d Thus,\u00a0the court not only granted broad new power to Congress, but also limited the extent to which that power would be subject to checks and balances<\/strong>.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t have to imagine how the \u201cFather of the Constitution\u201d would feel about the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of the welfare clause. In 1792, Madison\u00a0wrote<\/a>, \u201cThe federal government has been hitherto limited to the specified powers\u2026If not only the\u00a0means<\/em>, but the\u00a0objects<\/em>\u00a0[purposes] are unlimited,\u00a0the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n While the Welfare Clause has been abused to expand federal\u00a0spending<\/em>\u00a0power, Commerce Clause abuse has unleashed sprawling federal\u00a0regulatory<\/em>\u00a0power.\u00a0As with the Welfare Clause, what was meant to curtail government intrusion into the lives of Americans has perversely been used to expand it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to\u00a0\u201cregulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.\u201d\u00a0The Supreme Court\u2019s sham interpretation focuses on \u201camong the several states.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to consider that the Constitution was drafted to replace the Articles of Confederation. Among the woes that prompted that evolution was the imposition of tariffs by individual states against other states.\u00a0The Commerce Clause was intended to enable a free trade zone<\/strong>\u00a0within the union, by empowering Congress to bar interstate tariffs.<\/p>\n \u201cIt grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing,\u201d\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0Madison, \u201cand was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.\u201d<\/p>\n Those working to expand federal authority have argued that \u201ccommerce\u201d doesn\u2019t merely apply to trade, but also encompasses manufacturing and agriculture or even \u201call gainful activity.\u201d<\/p>\n However,\u00a0in the constitutional ratification debates, the word \u201ccommerce\u201d\u00a0uniformly<\/a>\u00a0and narrowly referred only to mercantile trade or exchange<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 not to manufacturing, agriculture or retail sales, much less to any gainful activity.<\/p>\n Thomas Jefferson\u00a0underscored<\/a>\u00a0the intended scope of the clause:<\/p>\n \u201cThe power given to Congress by the Constitution\u00a0does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen<\/strong>,)\u00a0which remain exclusively with its own legislature<\/strong>; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n However,\u00a0the Commerce Clause is now used to justify federal regulation of nearly every aspect of our existence<\/strong>, including activities that happen entirely within a single state. On this front, the Supreme Court did its greatest harm with its 1942\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Wickard v Filburn<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n In a move that would leave founding farmers aghast,\u00a0the federal government had fined Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn for growing more wheat on his small farm than allowed<\/strong>\u00a0by the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938.<\/p>\n Filburn wasn\u2019t even growing the wheat for sale \u2014\u00a0only to feed his own family and animals,<\/strong>\u00a0and for future planting. This clearly wasn\u2019t commerce as meant by the Constitution\u2019s authors and ratifiers, to say nothing of the fact that Filburn\u2019s activity lacked any interstate character whatsoever.<\/p>\n That didn\u2019t stop the Supreme Court from upholding the law on Commerce Clause grounds. The court creatively declared that, by choosing not to buy wheat in the marketplace, individuals like Filburn could collectively have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.<\/p>\n As Rand Paul wrote in a 2012 Supreme Court\u00a0amicus<\/a>\u00a0filing,\u00a0\u201cWickard<\/em>\u00a0stands for the sad proposition that Congress can prevent a man from feeding his family in his own home with food he grew himself.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Of course, it does far more than that, serving as a key precedent that subjects any activity to the federal government\u2019s control and punishment.\u00a0All that\u2019s needed is a theoretical, tangential link to the economy\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 something every single aspect of life has to some degree.<\/p>\n We\u2019d be far better off had the founding arrangement endured.\u00a0The decentralization of power and governance reduces political discord\u00a0<\/strong>and results in more people being governed in ways they find agreeable.\u00a0<\/strong>If our federalism matched the constitutional design, we\u2019d see citizens focusing most of their political energy on state and local governments \u2014 where they have far more meaningful representation compared to the federal legislature, which now has the average House member representing\u00a0761,000<\/a>\u00a0people.<\/p>\n If state law, rather than federal law, were preeminent on the vast majority of topics, we\u2019d also see sharper differentiations in what life is like in each of the 50 states.\u00a0Americans would be presented with a more diverse selection of places to live<\/strong>, while enjoying the freedom to choose the one that best comports with their views on how things should be.<\/p>\n As it is,\u00a0the Supreme Court-enabled concentration of power in Washington locks us all into a massive, winner-take-all steel-cage match<\/strong>, forcing us to fight over who gets to impose their philosophy on 332 million people across 3.8 million square miles of territory.<\/p>\n Even when the states comprising the union were far fewer in number and occupied far less territory,\u00a0the prospect of centralized government was anathema to the likes of George Mason<\/strong>. At Virginia\u2019s ratifying convention, he\u00a0asked<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cIs it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country<\/strong>, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How can we close the Pandora\u2019s box the Supreme Court has opened?<\/strong>\u00a0Though\u00a0Helvering<\/em>,\u00a0Wickard<\/em>\u00a0and similar decisions are objectively outrageous, it\u2019s hard to imagine the Supreme Court setting things right by overturning them.<\/p>\n There\u2019s another long-shot avenue \u2014\u00a0amending the Constitution<\/strong>. Under Article V, a\u00a0constitutional amendment convention<\/a>\u00a0must be convened if two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures call for one. Such a movement is already underway: As I previously\u00a0covered<\/a>, 19 states have now requested a convention, with one of the goals being to limit federal jurisdiction and power.<\/p>\n If we don\u2019t bend the union back into proper shape, it will surely break<\/strong>\u00a0under the pressure of intensifying discontent with concentrated power and one-size-fits-all governance. Barring a burst of constitutional-amendment momentum,\u00a0expect the country\u2019s simmering secession movements to grow far more substantial and numerous<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Stark Realities<\/a>\u00a0undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum.\u00a0Read more and subscribe at\u00a0starkrealities.substack.com<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/cd3bfae4-9ba8-4444-bfdb-ff6c9941efb3_1920x1080.jpg?itok=qh8D78IQ\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/overview-James-Madison.jpg?itok=ecKc4Jt0\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/fdr%20packed%20court%20cartoon.jpg?itok=e_PaC-Xc\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/roscoefilburn1%202.jpg?itok=wcrwbm_n\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/styles\/inline_image_mobile\/public\/inline-images\/bovard%20_0.jpg?itok=gmWEd1cF\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n