What happens when they rule wrong and the side effect results in an expansion of government power? The founders, Federalist Papers, ratifying conventions, and individual state constitutions make the meaning of the Second Amendment clear. Yet we have the NFA, which passes constitunal scrutiny only under a twisted reading of the commerce clause.Jumping Frog wrote:You need to understand that the Supreme Court does not review legislation and decide whether it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court simply rules on cases brought before it. That means an aggrieved party must have "standing", meaning they are directly affected by the case. Once a case is brought before the Supreme Court, the court issues a ruling on the case that may have as a side effect the ruling that some aspect of the law cannot be enforced because it is unconstitutional.
How does a plant, grown at home, that is never sold or transported across state lines, and used only by the individual who grew it regulated under the commerce clause? The Supreme Court can be wrong. We the People have traditionally fought such things through the states by using the Jeffersonian principle of nullification and the power of the Tenth Amendment. When enough states push back against the Feds they eventually loose. The principle has been applied to effectively nullify everything from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Real ID act.
My point is the Supreme Court, although having the supreme authority for a controversy brought before them, are not the supreme rulers of this land. And neither is the government. When the government passes a law contrary to the constitution, and the supreme court incorrectly rules on it, it is not a law and is null and void. And it is the duty of the states to fight back against such usurpations of power.