Joe mcQuade:

I dont know where you drew the conclusion that I "disagree" with Marbury v. Madison. I dont. Some entity has to be the final arbiter of the Constitution which is, after all, the "Supreme Law of the Land" see Article VI, Sec. 2, and the Courts, being less political, are best suited to the task. I mentioned marbury only to show that judicial review is part of the "unwritten Constitution."

I do believe Social Security is unconstitutional, despite it being upheld by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes it unless Ive missed something that no one else has pointed out to me yet. If it is not authorized, it is forbidden unless there is a way to extract authority from some other constitutional authority which, again, no one has pointed out to me. That is basic constitutional law--the national government is not fully sovereign, and has only those powers granted to it or which flow necessarily from powers granted to it see the 10th Amendment.

This is hardly "novel." It is established constitutional law. If anything, the arguments such as they are for Social Security, Medicare, and health care legislation are the "novel" ideas, since they flow from the New Deal decisions that turned formerly established constitutional law on its ear in order to justify the FDR programs.

I cant speak for the Cato Institute or the Federalist Society since I belong to neither, but I have never shrunk from a constitutional debate. I, in fact, would welcome one, since I think that such a debate would doom these proposals and initiatives. But I fail to understand why those of us who are defending the formerly established constitutional order need to propose amendments to reverse the usurpations of the new Deal, or to prevent further usurpations. Shouldnt the debate be driven by those seeking the change?