Don,

It is not an issue of being pro-Bush, but rather one of remembering history. When I was in college and law school in the 60s, we all stood up and cheered the playing of "Dixie" at our football games. I did not then, nor do I now, view that as being racist or bigoted, but rather one of simply remembering and honoring our history.

I don't know if this article is more ludicrous or pathetic. The "really brazen," "biggest Washington takeover in history" is Congress reducing the deficit by stopping the banks (remember these guys who recently tried to bring down the economy) from charging students higher interest than they pay to the government for these government guaranteed loans. Moreover, there is nothing cited that Obama and the Democrats have done that Bush and the Republicans didn't do. As far as creating an "imperial presidency," it was Bush, not Obama, who attempted to claim supreme powers under the "unitary executive" doctrine; it was Bush, not Obama,who exercised illegal imperial powers by invading a foreign country that did not attack or threatened to attack us; it was Bush, not Obama, who authorized torture -- a long time favorite of Imperial despots; it was Bush, not Obama, who expanded the concept of "executive privilege" to Imperial levels; it was Bush, not Obama, who trampled on the historical concepts of federalism and states rights by having citizens who attempted to comply with state laws arrested, ironically, it was Obama ordered his Justice Department to stop interfering in these states rights.

"The rhetorical quesion I like to ask is this: Do our elected and appointed officials swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, or do they swear to uphold and defend case law that exists in violation of the Constitution?"

It is the function of the courts to interpret the Constitution. Those interpretations are found in the "case law;" hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court, as found in its case law, can not be in violation of the Constitution

There is no "irreconcilable contradiction;" the 10th Amendment is general and the Supremacy Clause is specific. In statutory interpretation, the specific controls the general. That is why the Courts have always found that 10th Amendment does not give the states(or any other organization) the power, directly or indirectly, to nullify lawful acts of Congress.

I haven't smoked for over 40 years -- anything. We didn't have courses in politics in grammar school, but I agree that power usually corrupts and government should not get involved where it's not needed. FWIW, I am a "strict constructionist" and do not believe in a "living Constitution" as that term is usually applied.

But none of that has anything to do with the issue: that during my 41 years of practice, I have found that conservative judges have been more likely to read language into or out of the Constitution than liberal judges. Although I do not like the reasoning of Wickard v. Filburn, I don't believe there was anything in that decision which violated the expressed language of the Constitution (moreover, it is a lot more than 41 years old), as there was in the issues I cited. If you know of any expressed constitutional language violated by liberal judges I would appreciate if you would cite it to me.

BTW, what I disliked most about the famous "conservative" judge Bork was his propensity to ignore the expressed language of the Constitution in favor of law created by the judges themselves.

The bottom line of my posts is that if the other posters want to avoid activist judges who violate the expressed language of the Constitution, they need to do more than simply look at the judges' politics.

In the last 15 years there have been over a dozen instances of conservative judges in the Supreme Court or the Federal Courts of Appeals preventing citizens from suing their OWN state governments based on the 11th Amendment :

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

As you know, or should know, pursuant to the doctrine of "expressio unius est exclusio alterious" the inclusion of the words: "citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state" means that citizens of the state at issue are Not prohibited from suing their own state. Nonetheless, these conservative judges completely ignored the expressed language of the Constitution.

Now, can you cite to me examples of "liberal" judges similarly violating the expressed language of the Constitution?

BTW, I'm not saying that liberal judges never do it; I'm just saying that during the years I've been practicing, the conservatives have been worst.

I agree; however, in my 41 years of practicing law, I have found that conservative judges are more likely to read language into or out of the Constitution than are liberal judges.

I fear that many readers may be led astray by this article and others like it. All acts of Congress are presumed to be constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Nothing in the 10th amendment gives states or citizens thereof power to nullify constitutional acts of Congress-- the Supremacy Clause makes that clear. Other than a lawful challenge in court, any "act" by a state, any other purported government or citizen organization which purports to nullify an act of Congress is frivolous and treasonous.