The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.

All your arguments must mean that you're the final authority on the law. You keep saying people are whining when they disagree with policy and show the unconstitutionality of laws being passed today. When you can not continue with logic, you claim others are whining.

With the GOP holding something like 30 state houses and poised to grab a few more, it is going to be easier to get the states to start pushing back on the Federal Government.

The question is: Is the tribal GOP (of which I am a member) going to coalesce to really make some good things happen.

I look forward to a discussion of health care within my state. I could let a fifth grader write the law and get something better than Obamacare.

The discussion part is over. The doing part is here.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.

The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so. They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take. They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us. But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make. And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous. Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
general welfare

Actually, no it doesn't become clear.

Jefferson's writing after the fact are irrelevant to the document itself.

We are ONLY talking about the actual COTUS here. Not ancillary documents. A clause that relies on the interpretation of other writings to make its meaning clear is a poorly written clause.

You WANT it to mean something, and so it does. To you.

Now personally, I agree with you. So called entitlement benefits are far and beyond the scope of the federal government. But unlike you, I recognize that that is my OPINION.

I will agree with you partially.....

That it isn't clear is a problem.

That these ancillary documents are not meaningful is not altogether true. It would have been good to have more clarity on the 14th amendment as there continues to be fracturing over the doctrine of incorporation.

Stephen O. Douglas (the gambler) is reported to have said the COTUS can mean whatever you want it to mean (or whatever he wanted it to mean given he was a justice). That is not possible in a historical context moving forward from the fact that the COTUS was our second attempt. Historical behavior generally favors those who take the POV that this document was to limit the federal government.

I think it was Douglas who would eventually "find" the right to "privacy" in the COTUS. I only wish he found his ass....cause then he'd know where his head was.

 

[PMZ]

The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so. They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take. They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us. But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make. And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous. Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.

Actually, no it doesn't become clear.

Jefferson's writing after the fact are irrelevant to the document itself.

We are ONLY talking about the actual COTUS here. Not ancillary documents. A clause that relies on the interpretation of other writings to make its meaning clear is a poorly written clause.

You WANT it to mean something, and so it does. To you.

Now personally, I agree with you. So called entitlement benefits are far and beyond the scope of the federal government. But unlike you, I recognize that that is my OPINION.

I will agree with you partially.....

That it isn't clear is a problem.

That these ancillary documents are not meaningful is not altogether true. It would have been good to have more clarity on the 14th amendment as there continues to be fracturing over the doctrine of incorporation.

Stephen O. Douglas (the gambler) is reported to have said the COTUS can mean whatever you want it to mean (or whatever he wanted it to mean given he was a justice). That is not possible in a historical context moving forward from the fact that the COTUS was our second attempt. Historical behavior generally favors those who take the POV that this document was to limit the federal government.

"Historical behavior generally favors those who take the POV that this document was to limit the federal government."

Clearly what Listening (who chose that nickname?) wishes was true.

Of course there's no evidence that it is, but one can wish, no?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have.

Really? Copy and paste.
Else, you're running away from a position you know you cannot soundly support. Again.

Tell us your plan to make it through life without health care.

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

 

[PMZ]

Really? Copy and paste.
Else, you're running away from a position you know you cannot soundly support. Again.

Tell us your plan to make it through life without health care.

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
Let's just look at one phrase
"the General welfare"
what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

This is not at all difficult to define - one only read the words of James Madison, the man who wrote it:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The Federalist #41

“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."
James Madison said that 'general welfare' not prescription for unlimited government

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
James Madison Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

Thus, anyone that argues the "general welfare clause" gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care, et al, has not a leg to stand on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell us your plan to make it through life without health care.

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

 

[Listening]

Tell us your plan to make it through life without health care.

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.

Hence your statement is a Strawman.

Or maybe you could point to where he suggested we have a government without laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.
Hence your statement is a Strawman.

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

 

[PMZ]

I accept your concession of the points that:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive;
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.

Hence your statement is a Strawman.

Or maybe you could point to where he suggested we have a government without laws.

No country has ever been run on voluntary laws. So what is a strawman is his assertion that ACA is unique in involuntary servitude when, in fact, all laws in every country are the same.

Like all laws, ACA is an involuntary standard for responsibility.

 

[PMZ]

You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws. All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable. All involuntary servitude.

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.
Hence your statement is a Strawman.

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.

Very bizarre.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.
Hence your statement is a Strawman.

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.
Very bizarre.

Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

 

[PMZ]

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.
Very bizarre.

Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

You applying this rubber stamp to everything that I post proves nothing at all.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.
Hence your statement is a Strawman.

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.

Very bizarre.

Every time I hear 'law of the land' I ask myself what that really means. Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. Now why is it that we can't just say the 2nd and 4th amendments are the 'law of the land' and quit trying to force gun control and warrant less spying? How come your argument 'law of the land' is only used when it suits your argument?

 

[PMZ]

A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.

Very bizarre.

Every time I hear 'law of the land' I ask myself what that really means. Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. Now why is it that we can't just say the 2nd and 4th amendments are the 'law of the land' and quit trying to force gun control and warrant less spying? How come your argument 'law of the land' is only used when it suits your argument?

I don't know what it means to you. What it means to me is pretty simple. All of the Federal laws that have been enacted from the Constitution to the the last one passed by Congress and signed by the President this year.

"Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. "

I think that this is the essential lie of conservatism. The interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution has been done throughout our history with a very rigorous, reliable process that has led to a strong capable active functional Union.

Conservatives are inwardly focused and therefore favor States if not even more local pre-eminence. Their only real argument in favor of what they want is to try to resurrect what the Constitutional Convention couldn't and didn't agree on. The argument against States rights was won at the Convention. They would have preferred a different outcome.

So, they try to sell that liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights when in fact our liberal history has been devoted to following what the CC agreed to.

Conservatives want to change that to what the CC didn't agree to.

 

[ShawnChris13]

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.

Very bizarre.

Every time I hear 'law of the land' I ask myself what that really means. Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. Now why is it that we can't just say the 2nd and 4th amendments are the 'law of the land' and quit trying to force gun control and warrant less spying? How come your argument 'law of the land' is only used when it suits your argument?

I don't know what it means to you. What it means to me is pretty simple. All of the Federal laws that have been enacted from the Constitution to the the last one passed by Congress and signed by the President this year.

"Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. "

I think that this is the essential lie of conservatism. The interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution has been done throughout our history with a very rigorous, reliable process that has led to a strong capable active functional Union.

Conservatives are inwardly focused and therefore favor States if not even more local pre-eminence. Their only real argument in favor of what they want is to try to resurrect what the Constitutional Convention couldn't and didn't agree on. The argument against States rights was won at the Convention. They would have preferred a different outcome.

So, they try to sell that liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights when in fact our liberal history has been devoted to following what the CC agreed to.

Conservatives want to change that to what the CC didn't agree to.

Yep . Gun control doesn't infringe on the bill of rights at all! Are freking serious PMZ? I'm sorry if I laid out a conservative argument. Conservatives are just as guilty of infringing on the bill of rights. Not everything is simply an interpretation of the constitution. Shall not be infringed! How is that supposed to be 'interpreted' by anybody!? It's plain English!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You say that ACA, the law of the land, isn't, then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.
Very bizarre.

Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

You applying this rubber stamp to everything that I post proves nothing at all.

The fact that you confinue to refuse to present a sound argument in support of your positions says all that needs to be said.

- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true.

And so, I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

 

[PMZ]

Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

You applying this rubber stamp to everything that I post proves nothing at all.

The fact that you confinue to refuse to present a sound argument in support of your positions says all that needs to be said.

- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true.

And so, I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

"- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care"

That's the job of SCOTUS. Not me and not you. Read their decision


"- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive"

It's the nature of insurance that you pay for risk. If you are lucky, you won't need it. If you are unlucky, you'll save a ton.

"- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude"

All laws can be construed as involuntary servitude. There is no other way to get people who feel entitled to impose on others to reconsider.

- you know all of thse things to be true.

You can't present a sound argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You applying this rubber stamp to everything that I post proves nothing at all.

The fact that you confinue to refuse to present a sound argument in support of your positions says all that needs to be said.

- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true.

And so, I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

"- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care"

That's the job of SCOTUS. Not me and not you. Read their decision


"- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive"

It's the nature of insurance that you pay for risk. If you are lucky, you won't need it. If you are unlucky, you'll save a ton.

"- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude"

All laws can be construed as involuntary servitude. There is no other way to get people who feel entitled to impose on others to reconsider.

- you know all of thse things to be true.

You can't present a sound argument.

I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.

 

[Listening]

Here is from Federalist 46.

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.