I'm no fan of Alexander Hamilton. At the risk of stating the obvious, however, I note that he gave an excellent explanation in Federalist 81 re why the Supreme Court must be independent of Congress . Among other reasons, he noted that the very concept of a Constitution providing limited, enumerated powers to the federal government militates against Congress being the judge of its actions. (In Hamilton's time, the House of Lords was the final judicial power in Britain.)
Hamilton provides several arguments against Congress' exercising judicial power --noting that "...on the natural propensity of such bodies [legislatures] to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity."
Hamilton also notes "The same spirit which had operated in making them [bad laws] would be too apt to influence their construction; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in that of judges."
Hamilton dismisses fears of the Supreme Court abusing its power and making laws, vice interpreting them. Among other reasons, he notes Congress' power to impeach and remove Justices as a deterrent and check.
Congress' attempt to claim an unlimited power to regulate commerce --as a rationale for gun control which bypasses the Second Amendment --should be rejected by the courts. If this abuse is suffered , then Congress could later use a similar argument to destroy the free press --e.g., by a law requiring a publisher to pay a tax of $100 for every newspaper he sells.
If we accept "reasonable regulation" of guns, then we will later have to accept "reasonable regulation" of the press-- e.g., the argument that the First Amendment is satisfied by having the news disseminated solely by three "socially responsible" TV networks whose product is extensively censored by the FCC and the Department of Homeland Security.
Some might dismiss my concerns by arguing that guns are destructive and the press is not. That argument is absurd to anyone who has ever visited a gun show. If I were an insurgent, I would not buy a registered AK-47 whose bullets cannot penetrate modern body army , which would probably put me on a dozen watch lists, and which has a very loud noise instantly raising an alarm and identifying my location. I would instead buy books --e.g, the US Army's "Improvised Munitions Handbook" , which explains how to make improvised explosives , shaped charges, thermite ,etc. Or maybe books on spy tradecraft -- covert communications, the unbreakable one time pad encryption, lock picking, detection of surveillance, etc.
Timed incendiaries and anonymous sabotage of expensive factory equipment, fiber optic lines, oil and water pipelines, railroads, and the electrical grid would be a far more effective protest --would have far more influence on the wealthy backers of an unconstitutional coup --than would suicidal firefights. Just look at Iraq. Or maybe California.
(I'm speaking hypothetically , of course -- and I'm doing so because I suspect that some people who presume to mess with the Constitution don't get out much.)
