Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Navy1960]

While Centrism your correct that a SCOTUS decision is at times considered settled law until such time as it is overturned by another case, there are many 10th Amendment cases I just cited one as an example to show where the court had veered off the path of the framers original intent and thats quite clear from Jeffersons words on the matter. I sometimes think that people often are under the impression that the United States of America when they look at it often times forget the States part and focus on the America part. No matter there are many examples if this ..

Munn v. Illinois

Citation: 94 U.S. 113 (1877) Concepts: Public-Private Property/FreeEnterprise v. State Rights

Facts

Midwestern farmers felt that they were being victimized by the exorbitant freight rates they were forced to pay to the powerful railroad companies. As a result, the state of Illinois passed a law that allowed the state to fix maximum rates that railroads and grain elevator companies could charge.

Issue

Whether the regulation of railroad rates by the state of Illinois deprived the railroad companies of property without due process of law.

Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Illinois law because the movement and storage of grain were considered to be closely related to public interest. This type of economic activity could be governed by state legislatures, whereas purely private contracts could only be governed by the courts. The Court held that laws affecting public interest could be made or changed by state legislatures without interference from the courts. The Court said, “For protection against abuse by legislatures, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts.”


I'm also in complete agreement with caela on the fact that often times the Federal Govt. will use the power of the Federal purse to bend states to it's will as was the case with the drinking laws.

 

[Bern80]

You're partially right, but only partially. From a strictly technical viewpoint, it was indeed pointless to include the 10th amendment. It was included only due to the politics that were going on at the time: so many of the delegates were so afraid of having state sovereignty eclipsed that they would not have ratified the Constitution without it.

One could argue that the 10th serves as reminder that the Feds power was meant to be limited. After all when you have an amendment that says power NOT delegated to the Fed falls to the states, one would inherently ask what are the powers of the fed. Can't look to Art. 1 Sect. 9 for that, that only tells what it can't do. You have to go to section 8.

Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?

By the same reasoning, any power not prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10 should in principle be within the rights of the states to exercise.

 

[Bern80]

Secondly without ammendment 10 how would the states what they can do?

By the same reasoning, any power not prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10 should in principle be within the rights of the states to exercise.

Fair enough I suppose. It honestly can be seen both ways validly. You may say the 10th amendment doesn't need to be there. To me, with our government and current president, barely abiding it and in some cases not even (even thought he took an oath to defend it), I'm glad it is there. More and more politicians are trying to stretch the interpretation of the document for their own convenience. One can easily see how much easier that would become without the explicitness of the 10the amendment.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Fair enough I suppose. It honestly can be seen both ways validly. You may say the 10th amendment doesn't need to be there. To me, with our government and current president, barely abiding it and in some cases not even (even thought he took an oath to defend it), I'm glad it is there. More and more politicians are trying to stretch the interpretation of the document for their own convenience. One can easily see how much easier that would become without the explicitness of the 10the amendment.

It might or might not be. There have been very few cases in history (under 5, certainly) where the Supreme Court ever invoked the 10th in support of its decision.