The Constitution's Paradox

The outrage of Gonzalez v. Raich is not necessarily Constitutional, but rather moral; even if Scalia (to hell with Stevens and the other "liberal" fascists - I have zero regard for their opinion) has the better argument than O'Connor and Thomas, that just shows that the Constitution itself is defective. If it is indeed correct that the "commerce clause" and "necessary and proper clause" of the Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate what people grow and injest on their own property, then the Supreme Court isn't to blame for this decision. But, like the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I, it shows that moral catastrophes can occur even under the authority of the Constitution. And that it isn't as great in protecting our rights as has been advertised. Heck, it even means that the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, didn't need to be written. "Necessary and proper" means "unlimited government." In this line of thought, the Constitution not only utterly failed to check tyranny in this case, but actually authorizes and affirms tyranny.

On the other hand, if O'Conner and Thomas are correct and the federal government's circumvention of state law in this case is unconstitutional, this is just further evidence that all three branches of government are operating outside and against the Constitution. Which makes officials of the federal government lawless tyrants, enemies of the American people.

Neither conclusion inspires much faith in our system of government, or hope for restoration and expansion of liberty.