The public is concerned about the centralization of power in Washington. The Founding Fathers, in their thoroughgoing debates about what should and should not go into the Constitution, were aware of the size and diversity of the nation and that it would yet grow larger. In this they showed their wisdom, perhaps more so than those later elected to Congress or serving on the Supreme Court. So the Founders delegated only certain explicit rights to the Federal Government. Many people were nevertheless afraid that the Central Government would become too powerful and insisted on a Bill of Rights before agreeing to ratify the new document.

Article IX thus asserts "the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", and Article X adds, even more explicitly, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people."

The concern of the people proved to be justified. The Supreme Court soon began a process of broad judicial reinterpretation of what was perfectly clear to the citizen-in-the-street, introducing the notion of "implied powers" which were clearly neither implied not intended by the Founders. This reconstruing of the Constitution, enabled the Court to uphold Federal legislation in areas of widely differing local concern, including schools, matters of local taste and morality and even local health, environmental, safety, education, and welfare legislation. The result has been the imposition of a uniformity on many legal matters which the Founders had deliberately intended be left to local states and communities taking into account the great cultural differences pertaining in one of the geographically largest and socially least homogenous nations on earth.

As a result, the most activist segments in the most liberal localities in the country have succeeded in imposing their views of the just society on much more conservative communities. And the Supreme Courts of the past hundred years have by shrewd legalistic sleight of hand let them get away with it.

In consequence, what has heretofore been the silent majority, has started agitating for Constitutional Amendments to permit local diversity regarding such variant elements as censorship of indecent printed material, access to pornographic sites on the Internet, gun and drug control, minimal standards for abortion, eligibility for state welfare programs, prayer in the schools, and flag burning. The Senate Judiciary Committee is presently devoting precious time to considering a flag burning amendment.

The Constitution is too valuable a document and is too laden with veneration and the weight of history to allow it to become a hundred page legislative document burdened with overmuch detail like those of so many other countries which are junked and replaced every quarter of a century -- if not more often. The attempt to resolve every social problem created by the Supreme Court promotes an unhealthy psychology of "legislation by constitutional amendment"

Rather, we might do one of two things: Deliberately reenact Articles IX and X of the Constitution, in their exact present wording, thus sending an unmistakable message to the Court, Congress, and White House that "this time we really mean it. Feds keep out of State territory." Or, use machinery already incorporated in the Constitution. Article III. Section 2, paragraph 1, establishes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include matters arising under Federal law, treaty law, matters affecting foreign diplomats, admiralty and maritime law, disputes between states, as well as between citizens of one state and another state.

Section 2, paragraph 2 then goes on to state "In all other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" (emphasis supplied). This second course appears easier and more direct. Congress has employed this authority at least three times during the nation's history to limit or extend the Court's appellate jurisdiction. And the Court has never demurred, since the Congress' authority to do this is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.,

It is thus suggested that the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate undertake hearings with regard to the wording of legislation to remove from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction the findings of State Courts regarding all matters not explicitly delegated to Congressional action. Among the items to be excluded from the Court's appellate jurisdiction might be included:
1. rulings on the terms and conditions on which abortions may be performed
2. local ordinances regarding strip bars, pornography, and juvenile access to the Internet,
3. non-denominational prayers in public schools
4. punishing acts desecrating flags and other symbols of sovereignty
5. setting Congressional salaries by state law so that "one size fits all" would not be necessary where less prosperous states might be able to attract qualified candidates for half the salary New York or Chicago might consider necessary
6. eligibility for state welfare, irrespective of federal Îgrants in aid'"
7. rulings on such strictly political issues as Congressional redistricting within states
8. review of state court decisions on criminal punishments
9. state imposition of court costs on losers of civil cases to discourage frivolous suits
10.non-review of state decisions regarding the language of instruction in schools, or court

It is suggested that State Governors, Speakers of State Legislatures and State Senates, and Mayors of large cities undertake a letter writing campaign to stimulate such hearings and such legislation.