brass tacks

  

• "By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court. But an amendment must either be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, a proposed amendment only becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states)." 
• This is the method of checks and balances we were taught about in school. This is how we can reign in the power of the supreme court. The power of the court lies in the interpretation of the constitution. When the court issues an opinion that is what they are doing. Now we know that we must follow the constitution. The constitution is the law of the land. No law can be made in contradiction to that law. The only thing that can change is the opinion on that constitution. Just what did the writers mean. There is no doubt that each line, each phrase and paragraph was heavily debated. Concessions were made. There is no other way that document gets ratified. We are still debating those concessions to this day. But that is exactly why those checks and balances were written into the constitution. No one branch of government is to wield absolute power. 
•  The court recently ruled that the president, that is to say the executive branch, has no authority to forgive student debts. It's clear if you read the constitution. The constitution clearly states that congress controls the purse strings. Even Biden has acknowledged that imploring the congress to enact legislation to forgive those debts. It is clear to anyone with a brain that the person(s) controlling the money, control the country. That is the reason congress was vested with that power. The people will decide what money is to be spent where, when and why. The executive branch can veto that decision, the sole response allowed by law, and by a 2/3 vote the congress can override that veto. The individual state legislatures can convene a convention and control the congress! That's article five. All checks and balances.
•   Almost from the beginning the makeup of the supreme court has been an issue. The problem being that those justices are people like you and me. They all have their own opinion. Liberal and conservative views on each and every subject one can imagine. In fact, the constitution does not list any qualifications for being appointed a supreme court justice. No age, no educational requirement, profession or even citizenship. The thought there being, an opinion is an opinion, everyone can have one. I can read the constitution and form my own opinion on exactly what is meant by what was written. Reading between the lines is the art of the lawyer. Their opinions are formed more by the education they receive than any independent thought is my thinking on that. No different than how my attitudes, thoughts and sense of morality were influenced by my parents, peers and education. And when it comes down to the brass tacks, whose opinion counts? Generally speaking, the one that controls the purse strings. Consider what happens to any corporation/organization that upsets the buying public. A boycott, the withholding of funds will quickly change their opinion or shut them down completely. That is the power of the purse.
•  That is what all of this is about, the power of the purse. The purchase of legislation is perhaps the ultimate purchase of all. When you control that, you control the people. The socialist form of government is based on that premise. Dependence upon government is control. It begins with an air of benevolence. Like offering candy to baby. The appeal can't be denied, everyone feels like they "deserve" more. The one controlling the candy, holds the power. Power and promises. That is what government boils down to. No matter the political affiliation the end goal is the same, control of the purse strings. The congress has been charged with being the stewards of the peoples' money. They are required, by the constitution, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . ." That is the appropriations clause of the constitution. You don't need to be lawyer to understand any of that. 
•  We the people control the purse strings through our representatives. Strange, it sure doesn't feel that way though. The executive branch has been trying to wrest control of those purse strings since the beginning. The legislative branch has been fighting to keep control. The judicial branch has been strengthening their position, insisting their opinion is the only one that counts. The 11th amendment to the constitution was passed in response to Chisholm vs Georgia. The supreme court had ruled in favor of Chisholm. Congress didn't agree with that opinion and overrode the ruling with the 11th amendment. The court has changed its' opinion on several matters over the years. Recently at first the court said the Boy Scouts could exclude gays then reversed its' decision saying the Boy Scouts must admit gays. But no new amendments to the constitution. The last amendment to the constitution occurred in 1992. The Twenty-seventh Amendment says that no law can change Congresspeople's salaries until a new two-year term for Representatives starts. Yes, the last amendment was about the purse strings! No supreme court opinion required or asked for. Well, congress does control the purse strings, so there you go.