America’s founding generation confronted one of the problems we now face: judicial misconstruction of the Constitution. Soon after its passage, the Supreme court botched the case of Chisholm vs. Georgia, taking away from each State something that had not been surrendered, namely its sovereign immunity.
In short order the States got together and passed the 11th Amendment to correct the court’s misconstruction, or in other words to ensure that the controversial provision (Article III, § 2) was henceforth construed correctly. In this way, the Constitution was amended without really changing it in any way.
We face the same problem today. The original text is not deficient, only its interpretation. The principal culprits, the ones now botching it, also sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Their fundamental error is the same one made by the court in Chisholm vs. Georgia: the failure to grasp that each State in the Union retains all powers not actually surrendered —— and moreover, that nothing “federal” takes place, that takes place solely within one State.
So presently we have a body of case law built up to give Congress power, under the interstate commerce clause, to legislate regarding matters that are neither interstate nor commercial. The following amendment is designed to stop that:
The power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States,
shall not be construed to extend to commerce within the several States.
For good measure, and to buttress the foregoing, the following amendment suggests as well:
The power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes
shall not extend to sources within the several States.
The problem is that Congress, power-hungry if not power-mad, continues to conflate its jurisdiction over certain matters into a compound authority over all. As seen, this has been done by way of their power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, outlandishly, it is even done under the taxing authority, with respect to matters that do not concern taxation.
To any who would assert, with a straight face, that the government of the United States indeed has plenary authority throughout the United States, one need only consider Article 1, § 8, clause 17 and Article IV, § 3, clause 2, to see that such authority exists expressly within the District of Columbia, Territories and Possessions: in short, those areas of the United States where no State territory is involved.