The 10th Amendment

[Listening]

The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government. The rules for government, so to speak. It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within.

It specifies that the Federal government acts "over" states, but is not the bylaws for state governments.

How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.

If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....

It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.

From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution

So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care. Where is that authority granted it ?

Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also?

You asked than answered your question.

" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution"

Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.

ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com. And subsidies.

Nothing new.

That is not what this discussion is about.

Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.

To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.

That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).

That was the original question asked in the OP.

So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences. That they can be changed is what is more important.

That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.

The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.

Hence, this is the thesis of my OP. Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.

And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare. The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it. Already states are taking action to hem it in.

That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.

You asked the question....

Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail. Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ? I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something). I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.

Tricare: No opinion.

The VA is a different story. The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.

The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security. I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today. However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).

The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.

 

[Listening]

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.

Laws come first. Those that are effectively challenged get reviewed by Federal Courts. They rule on the challenges and declare the contested point in the existing law Constitutional or not. If not, it can't be enforced by the courts.

If laws keep changing because of interpretations, it's because they're being guided towards the Constitution, not away from it.

Laws move in both directions. Not just one. Nothing is ever settled.

 

[Listening]

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.

And that will always be the case.

The issue here is.....should that be the function of the SCOTUS or state SC's.

We all agree things change....not always to our liking. I think we'd like more consistency....but again....things change.

What the framers envisioned was the states running more of their own affairs.

I am quite certain they'd vomit all over something like Obamadon'tcare.

 

[PMZ]

How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.

If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....

It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.

From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution

So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care. Where is that authority granted it ?

Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also?

You asked than answered your question.

" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution"

Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.

ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com. And subsidies.

Nothing new.

That is not what this discussion is about.

Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.

To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.

That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).

That was the original question asked in the OP.

So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences. That they can be changed is what is more important.

That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.

The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.

Hence, this is the thesis of my OP. Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.

And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare. The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it. Already states are taking action to hem it in.

That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.

You asked the question....

Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail. Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ? I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something). I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.

Tricare: No opinion.

The VA is a different story. The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.

The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security. I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today. However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).

The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.
I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And a loyalty to pragmatism.

 

[PMZ]

Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also?

You asked than answered your question.

" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution"

Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.

ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com. And subsidies.

Nothing new.

That is not what this discussion is about.

Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.

To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.

That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).

That was the original question asked in the OP.

So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences. That they can be changed is what is more important.

That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.

The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.

Hence, this is the thesis of my OP. Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.

And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare. The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it. Already states are taking action to hem it in.

That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.

You asked the question....

Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail. Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ? I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something). I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.

Tricare: No opinion.

The VA is a different story. The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.

The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security. I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today. However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).

The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

 

[Listening]

That is not what this discussion is about.

Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.

To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.

That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).

That was the original question asked in the OP.

So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences. That they can be changed is what is more important.

That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.

The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.

Hence, this is the thesis of my OP. Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.

And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare. The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it. Already states are taking action to hem it in.

That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.

You asked the question....

Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail. Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ? I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something). I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.

Tricare: No opinion.

The VA is a different story. The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.

The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security. I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today. However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).

The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

When someone quotes a post, it is assumed that the text they write is in the context of the quote.

Your post makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am through trying to read between the lines.

If it is some kind of lecture...save it. But please do me the courtesy of note quoting me unless you are actually going to address the points I've made specifically or in general.

When you want to address, in specifics, the points I raised, I'll be waiting.

FYI: I am also an engineer.

 

[Listening]

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana. It would seem a dose of your own advice is in order.

I spelled out how people are addressing specifics and the process they are utilizing.

You respond with essentially nothing.

 

[PMZ]

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana. It would seem a dose of your own advice is in order.

I spelled out how people are addressing specifics and the process they are utilizing.

You respond with essentially nothing.

Do you consider this post something? As an example.

 

[PMZ]

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

When someone quotes a post, it is assumed that the text they write is in the context of the quote.

Your post makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am through trying to read between the lines.

If it is some kind of lecture...save it. But please do me the courtesy of note quoting me unless you are actually going to address the points I've made specifically or in general.

When you want to address, in specifics, the points I raised, I'll be waiting.

FYI: I am also an engineer.

Congratulations on being an engineer. An honorable profession and a significant academic achievement.

You say that you are unable to understand my point and it didn't address your point.

Which is it?

 

[PMZ]

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.

I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And an engineer's loyalty to pragmatism.

The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana. It would seem a dose of your own advice is in order.

I spelled out how people are addressing specifics and the process they are utilizing.

You respond with essentially nothing.

"The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana."

I'm pretty sure that my concept of America is based on many decades of experience here.

 

[Listening]

America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders. They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.

Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona. Externally, we are from the U.S.A.

We build a government to preserve and protect that union.

Not to homogonize the 50 states.

Trite platitudes are of no value when discussing the specifics of how this sytems is supposed to function.

 

[Listening]

When someone quotes a post, it is assumed that the text they write is in the context of the quote.

Your post makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am through trying to read between the lines.

If it is some kind of lecture...save it. But please do me the courtesy of note quoting me unless you are actually going to address the points I've made specifically or in general.

When you want to address, in specifics, the points I raised, I'll be waiting.

FYI: I am also an engineer.

Congratulations on being an engineer. An honorable profession and a significant academic achievement.

You say that you are unable to understand my point and it didn't address your point.

Which is it?

Both.

There is nothing in there that is decipherable with regards to my original post.

I somehow, think I'd know if there was something that addressed a particular point I made.

 

[PMZ]

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.

And that will always be the case.

The issue here is.....should that be the function of the SCOTUS or state SC's.

We all agree things change....not always to our liking. I think we'd like more consistency....but again....things change.

What the framers envisioned was the states running more of their own affairs.

I am quite certain they'd vomit all over something like Obamadon'tcare.

I'm quite sure that you are not in a position to speak for the founders. What we know that they believed in and could agree on is the Constitution, nothing more.

 

[PMZ]

America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders. They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.

Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona. Externally, we are from the U.S.A.

We build a government to preserve and protect that union.

Not to homogonize the 50 states.

Trite platitudes are of no value when discussing the specifics of how this sytems is supposed to function.

You cannot take us back to antebellum days. States rights was settled by the Civil War. If you don't like that outcome, start another one.

 

[PMZ]

Congratulations on being an engineer. An honorable profession and a significant academic achievement.

You say that you are unable to understand my point and it didn't address your point.

Which is it?

Both.

There is nothing in there that is decipherable with regards to my original post.

I somehow, think I'd know if there was something that addressed a particular point I made.

If you don't understand it, how do you know what point I made?

 

[Listening]

From Federalist 45:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

****************************

This against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation are a good indication of where the Founders were.

The election of 1800 pretty much sealed it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Listening]

America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders. They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.

Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona. Externally, we are from the U.S.A.

We build a government to preserve and protect that union.

Not to homogonize the 50 states.

Trite platitudes are of no value when discussing the specifics of how this sytems is supposed to function.

You cannot take us back to antebellum days. States rights was settled by the Civil War. If you don't like that outcome, start another one.

More talking points.

Already showed where states are hemming in Roe.

Now what can't I do ?

 

[Listening]

America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders. They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.

Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona. Externally, we are from the U.S.A.

We build a government to preserve and protect that union.

Not to homogonize the 50 states.

Trite platitudes are of no value when discussing the specifics of how this sytems is supposed to function.

You cannot take us back to antebellum days. States rights was settled by the Civil War. If you don't like that outcome, start another one.

If you were actually addressing the OP, you'd know that is just what is being discussed. Instead you seem to insist on littering threads with meaningless non-contributions.

When you have some kind of supportable argument, I'll be waiting (or another "Fox News" deflection").

 

[PMZ]

From Federalist 45:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

****************************

This against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation are a good indication of where the Founders were.

The election of 1800 pretty much sealed it.

Have a nice day.

But they couldn't agree on that. That’s why it is not in the Constitution.

 

[Listening]

From Federalist 45:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

****************************

This against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation are a good indication of where the Founders were.

The election of 1800 pretty much sealed it.

Have a nice day.

But they couldn't agree on that. That’s why it is not in the Constitution.

Sure.

The 10th amendment isn't a part of the constitution.

This is what was used to sell it to New York.