Patriot Groups throughout the Maricopa and North Pinal County area.
While I agree in spirit with the article on the Supreme Court usurpation of power, I don't think it's due to judicial review. If two laws are contradictory, who else can rule one or both unconstitutional. The problem is the Court outright ignoring the constitutional directive at the end of Article III section 2, that, "The trial of all crimes, except in the case of impeachment, shall be by jury".
Suppressing this, and knowledge by the people of our right to jury nullification, are at the heart of the Court's corruption. Yes, juries were used by the Supreme Court when this country was first founded.
And where did the concept requiring that the hearing of a trial before the Supreme Court be brought by someone with "standing" come from?
Although I found the article difficult to read, particularly the examples, I do agree with the basic premise that the Court has misinterpreted the intent of the Framers in the document. Two examples stand out. The first in 1947, I think, when the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a persons farm produce under the commerce clause even if he intended it for personal use and not commerce. The other was the Lopez case in TX where the Court ruled that carrying a gun on school grounds might usurp the ability of a person to participate in commerce due to be hindered by the potential of violence. Those two are examples of how the left is high jacking the Constitution. The only way to stop them is through a convention of states and amendments that would put term limits on Justices, and use stronger language in the commerce clause itself.
I agree that the rulings from your 2 examples don't conform to the Constitution. So why didn't they? And what could have prevented it? A trial by jury in the Supreme Court, which that Court has dismissed with a wave of its hand. The entire court system is terrified by the possibility raised by the principle of jury nullification.