The 10th Amendment

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Listening, Dec 1, 2013.

  1. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    This article sums it up pretty well.

    10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

    My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

    GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

    Prescription drugs

    No Child Left Behind

    TARP

    A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

    I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

    Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

    I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

    Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

    But I digress....

    If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.
     
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42,413
    Thanks Received:
    9,155
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,159
    The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that applies to the 10th Amendment as well.

    Since the Foundation Era, therefore, the 10th Amendment has never meant what has been incorrectly perceived by the partisan right:

    The GOP is at liberty to include whatever they wish in their talking points, provided they understand that rhetoric about the 10th Amendment existing as some sort of ‘veto authority’ possessed by the states to ‘nullify’ Federal statutes is completely devoid of merit, and has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution or its case law.

    What effect this may have in a political context is open to debate, republican candidates ‘invoking’ the 10th Amendment would be lying, of course, and that’s a gamble they may want to take if they believe lying about the Constitution will benefit them at the polls.

    But perhaps GOP candidates just might want to go with the truth and facts for a change and forego a ‘10th Amendment strategy.’
     
  3. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,533
    Thanks Received:
    6,135
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,400
    This was basically settled before your court case, Mr. Jones.

    By the Civil War.

    No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.
     
  4. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    In most of what I've read regarding the 10th amendment, I rarely see anyone try to utilize the 10th amendment as a basis for nullification. I do know that such sentiments exist, but they seem to be in the minority and rare.

    So, I'll just clarify by saying that is not what I meant in bringing this up.

    Even if it were the majority of writings, nullification is an all or nothing strategy.

    A true 10th amendment strategy would be much more subtle.
     
  5. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Oh, and thanks for pointing out that case law is the primary basis for considerations.

    Keeping in mind that nothing is ever totally settled. Meaning, of course, that even if the framers has some idea that the 10th amendment wasn't to be as it reads....it could still be made to mean as much if the right people were in power.

    Have a good day.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    That is not what the 10th amendment says.

    It defines who has what scope in terms of government reach. Where the feds have authority, they have full authority.

    Where they have no authority....they have no authority.
     
  7. ShawnChris13
    Offline

    ShawnChris13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +46
    Both parties have been abusing the constitution by constantly undermining the law until they can have free reign over government and the private sector. Which party supports the indefinite detention of Americans? Both. Which party supports warrant less wiretapping and collection of private data? Both.

    The Republicans and Democrats have been working along side each other to secure their power. Just look at how the Center for Presidential Debates was formed. Or look at how congressional districts are drawn. Or look at restrictions on how to be placed on the ballot.
     
  8. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Shawn,

    I won't argue this point with you because I agree.

    My point is that the 10th amendment does exist. It has been called upon when convenient by both sides. And just as readily ignored.

    Historically, it has had sway. It was the reason Roosevelt got so pissed he proposed his court packing scheme.

    There are a number of people who feel they know how things were supposed to fit together (and how they did, albeit not perfectly).

    My question has to do with whether or not a subtle effort to start encouraging states to exercise their individual prerogatives in order to start moving back to a more federalist type of system (government within government).

    Not as a means of defeating the other side, but as a means of keeping the issues more local.

    When the 10th was written, there were 13 states and about 6 million people in the United States. Now there are 310 million. California and New York have cities that are larger than 6 million.
     
  9. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,212
    Thanks Received:
    1,579
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    The 10th amendment says nothing of the sort. Have you read it?

    Clearly, the 10th is meant to reinforce the idea that the Federal government has a few, specifically enumerated powers in which it can involve itself. Outside of those powers, it's up to the people. Otherwise, the Constitution must be amended.

    That both parties and their cronies on the bench have sought to sidestep this most basic concept is what has led to the central planning experiments that, particularly during the Progressive era, have done far more harm than good.

    The Civil War did not repeal the 10th amendment nor the basic principal of limited government.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,212
    Thanks Received:
    1,579
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    No one thinks the 10th is about veto authority over the Feds. It's about the Feds being restricted to the enumerated powers. The 10th reinforces the idea of a limited federal government.
     

Share This Page