The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.

Never heard of the Free State Project. Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us. Only enough that control a small local segment. You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.

What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.

You know nothing about how the country was designed except for media propaganda.

You are a sucker, and that's a minority condition.

My mistake.

That fact that the Federalists papers were penned, in part, by James Madison (including 45 which was part of 44, 45, and 46...all of which support my contention) has no bearing on anything (for you...if you want to think of them as propaganda....I guess you'll just have to be at odds with Thomas Jefferson who I quoted earlier on the subject).

Or was Federalist 45 written by Fox News ?

That the 10th amendment says clearly what it means and because (in spite of the blathering of Jone's article which is bullshyt) there is plenty of historical evidence to support my claims (including FDR's court packing scheme)...and because you've provided nothing contrary except your own opinions....

I am afraid I'll just have to trust to my own judgement as to who knows more about how the country was designed.

When you want to debate, let me know.

You're welcome to your opinion, though it is irrelevant to the rest of us. America has a process to interpret the Constitution, and your name is no where to be found in it.

 

[Steven_R]

Neither is the Supreme Court's if you want to get down to it. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison came along that the Supreme Court decided it alone had the authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional.

 

[PMZ]

Neither is the Supreme Court's if you want to get down to it. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison came along that the Supreme Court decided it alone had the authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional.

That sounds extremely relevant to me compared to every nutballs wish for what it says.

 

[Listening]

You know nothing about how the country was designed except for media propaganda.

You are a sucker, and that's a minority condition.

My mistake.

That fact that the Federalists papers were penned, in part, by James Madison (including 45 which was part of 44, 45, and 46...all of which support my contention) has no bearing on anything (for you...if you want to think of them as propaganda....I guess you'll just have to be at odds with Thomas Jefferson who I quoted earlier on the subject).

Or was Federalist 45 written by Fox News ?

That the 10th amendment says clearly what it means and because (in spite of the blathering of Jone's article which is bullshyt) there is plenty of historical evidence to support my claims (including FDR's court packing scheme)...and because you've provided nothing contrary except your own opinions....

I am afraid I'll just have to trust to my own judgement as to who knows more about how the country was designed.

When you want to debate, let me know.

You're welcome to your opinion, though it is irrelevant to the rest of us. America has a process to interpret the Constitution, and your name is no where to be found in it.

When you want to debate, let me know.

 

[PMZ]

My mistake.

That fact that the Federalists papers were penned, in part, by James Madison (including 45 which was part of 44, 45, and 46...all of which support my contention) has no bearing on anything (for you...if you want to think of them as propaganda....I guess you'll just have to be at odds with Thomas Jefferson who I quoted earlier on the subject).

Or was Federalist 45 written by Fox News ?

That the 10th amendment says clearly what it means and because (in spite of the blathering of Jone's article which is bullshyt) there is plenty of historical evidence to support my claims (including FDR's court packing scheme)...and because you've provided nothing contrary except your own opinions....

I am afraid I'll just have to trust to my own judgement as to who knows more about how the country was designed.

When you want to debate, let me know.

You're welcome to your opinion, though it is irrelevant to the rest of us. America has a process to interpret the Constitution, and your name is no where to be found in it.

When you want to debate, let me know.

Pick a topic.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

 

[Listening]

You're welcome to your opinion, though it is irrelevant to the rest of us. America has a process to interpret the Constitution, and your name is no where to be found in it.

When you want to debate, let me know.

Pick a topic.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

When you want to debate, let me know.

 

[PMZ]

When you want to debate, let me know.

Pick a topic.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

When you want to debate, let me know.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

 

[Listening]

Pick a topic.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

When you want to debate, let me know.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

When you want to debate, let me know.

 

[PMZ]

When you want to debate, let me know.

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?

When you want to debate, let me know.

It appears that you want to debate, just not any particular topic. I'm not sure how to have a non topical debate. The only debates that I've ever had were about something specific. You'll have to teach me abstract debate. Debate in general without a specific question.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] -

Ok, I read through most all of the thread. I think that a lot of you guys brought some very interesting ideas to the table and I want to compliment you as a group for it. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone quoted the 10th verbatim, so just to be sure, I am going to:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice please the use of the word "or" between "respectively" and "to the people". This is a word that the so-called "sovereign citizens" had definitely noticed.


Notice that the 10th amendment was the caboose to the Bill of Rights. That is in no way meant as an insult. It's pretty common to put very important things either at the beginning or the end of a list, and that may be the case with this amendment. Tacking this issue to the very end of the Bill of Rights makes it the very last thing that people read within the Constitution until the 11th amendment came along. (I wonder how many of us can recite all 27 amendments by heart?)

So, a lot of arguments have been made about US-Government encroachment in areas where citizens think that the states and the states alone should have the say and the sway. Probably in a number of areas, you will not get a disagreement from me about that.

But - and here is begins - let's remember a lot of the things that motivated even writing the 10th amendment:

-slavery, already a hot issue at the writing of the US Constitution.
-backlash against the commerce clause.
-a need to tidy up loose ends.

I think that on the whole, the 10th amendment is more wise than it is unwise.

But let's take an example and see who is really a constitutional purist out there, or not:

2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's assume for a moment that that amendment also at least refers to having a military in the first place.

Now, let's see exactly what is written in the US Constitution about the military:

The President's responsibility vis-a-vis the US military:

Article II, section ii:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Congress' responsibility vis-a-vis the US military:

Article I, section viii:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, what is missing in this?

The answer should be obvious:

The Air Force.

Why?

Because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, manned-flight did not even exist.

No amendment has ever been added to the US constitution about this. Therefore, for strict constitutional purists, the USAF must be technically unconstitutional, or at best, should be therefore resolved by the 10th amendment and administered by each of the 50 states as each sees fit, right?

But that would be terrible for our military, now wouldn't it? How in the hell can you have a smoothly functioning Air Force with 50 different beaurocracies all sticking their fingers in the pie?


Now, this article makes a pretty salient argument for an air force as being constitutional, and I would tend to agree with it:

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

However that does not remove the fact that the Air Force is not mentioned in the US Constitution and NO amendment was ever brought forth make this constitutional. And the very reasoning used in that article can also be used to justify other things that 10thers might not find so savory.


So, the next question is: are people only cherry picking what they don't like to invoke the 10th amendment, or are they willing to be strict constructionalists about it?

Now, I am not trying to stoke a hornets' nest with this posting. I am attempting to reinvigorate some honest conversation about this aspect of the 10th amendment.

Listening made one point I don't necessarily agree with. He indicated that it was his feelling that very few (I assume, on the Right) are using the 10th to support nullification, but all I have seen in the last 5 years coming from the Right are more than just hints at nullification when it comes to people talking about the 10th amendment.

Look at the last two presidential elections where a third party won electoral votes:

1948 - Strom Thurmond - STATES RIGHTS PARTY
1968 - George Wallace - AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY

Both invoked the 10th amendment. Both were strongly opposed to equal rights for black citizens. And it cannot be denied that both of those candidates came from the South.

Another part of this argument should be the ongoing strite between the 10thers and those who constantly invoke the Commerce Clause. You know, this kind of brinksmanship has been going on for a long time. It is time to stop it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last point I want to throw in is that I am GLAD that you all are discussing the 10th, because the heated passions around it are just another sign to me that is it time for a constitutional convention. It is time to re-write and update our most significant document. No document is perfect. Alone, the need to insert a bill of rights with the document we now recognize are our Constitution proves inexorably that even the founding fathers knew that the Constitution was imperfect and that it was a compromise.


Ok, those were my first two cents.

 

[Listening]

Statistikhengst,

You know your short name would be Statist .

I'll address your point about the Air Force in the context of your statement about the brinksmanship between those who are really somewhat extreme in their approach.

And thank you for your thoughtful considerations.

I would not have thought the idea of the Air Force would be much of an issue. If you are a literalist, you know that this was the kind of thing the General Welfare Clause was intended to cover. It allows the Federal Government to do what it needs to do to achieve the limited scope of functions it was created for. Clearly the constitution was written to allow the Federal Government to do what it needs to do protect our borders. There is nothing in there about nuclear might either. I seriously doubt any of the framer (after getting over the initial shock) would say anything about this.

Connecting those dots is pretty easy for me.

It is not so easy with other things.

Your article mentions Jefferson's "Wall". Did you know that post the formation of the U.S. the states had state supported religions.

History News Network | The Separation of Church and State Is Rooted in American Christianity (this article has a list of when states stopped doing this about 2/3 way down).

The point being they were never challenged and it was only when the states figured out the issues they caused that they were done away with. Clarence Thomas has even argued that they could still constitutionally exist today.

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

Got off track again.

Madison argued against a Bill of Rights saying if you enumerate one you open the door to the states to do just what you say some do....if it isn't explicit, it ain't. Those who do this (and the nullification effort is part of this IMO) are on the extreme. But Madison was wrong in thinking we did not need it. He said it was implicit. Look at the arguments that come out today.

I can justify the Air Force (via the General Welfare clause as I've described it).

I can't justify Obamacare.

I would gladly welcome a state conversation on the topic. My state is relatively small and yet we are the same size as Finland. Finland has their own system (which we hear works fine....), why can't we ?

As to your final comment, I am not in agreement with rewriting it. I would much rather start with what we have and tune it up.

 

[Listening]

Statistikhengst,

I also saw you article had Judicial Review in it. We should save that for a different thread in this forum. That should get some attention (and some people banned) .

L

 

[Foxfyre]

In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat". As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.

But. . .kudos to him for a great post.

And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.

The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things. Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role. And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.

Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers. But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition. The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.

And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force. But its roots are entirely constitutional.

It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs. In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.
[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]: I do not believe the Air Force can be justifed under the General Welfare clause however.

 

[Listening]

Listening made one point I don't necessarily agree with. He indicated that it was his feelling that very few (I assume, on the Right) are using the 10th to support nullification, but all I have seen in the last 5 years coming from the Right are more than just hints at nullification when it comes to people talking about the 10th amendment.

Look at the last two presidential elections where a third party won electoral votes:

1948 - Strom Thurmond - STATES RIGHTS PARTY
1968 - George Wallace - AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY

Both invoked the 10th amendment. Both were strongly opposed to equal rights for black citizens. And it cannot be denied that both of those candidates came from the South.

It is unfortunate that people utilized a great concept to further evil ends.

Even today, the GOP will hide behind the 10th when it suites their purposes (mainstream GOP), when it seem they just want power.

But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The purpose behind all of this is to keep things as local as possible with the assumption that geography, ethnics, weather, economies and whole lot more are not uniform throughout this country and that tailoring laws to each state (and counties and municipalities) is the best way for people to get the most of what they want (whether it be liberty from government or the so called cradle to grave state assistance).

And you'll really never stop it.

I cited Roe v. Wade. Abortion is still restricted and some states are moving incrementally to tighten regulations as best they can to restrict abortion (not my favorite topic BTW).

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

Increasingly, however, there is a fundamental assumption both sides seem to share, even if they don't say so, and it may well shape the future of abortion rights in America: Opponents and supporters of abortion appear to have taken the position that Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land.

After citing a list of new restrictions...the article continues...

It hardly bears observing here that most of these measures are against the law. That law is Roe v. Wade. Making abortion illegal after 18 or 20 weeks doesn't meet the viability test that was laid out in Roe, and 72-hour waiting periods and doing away with health exceptions for the mother would also violate both Roe and its progeny.

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

These won't get challenged because the pro-abortion crowd knows Roe could get reversed and that would really screw them.

My point being that this is going to happen anyway.

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

And so I go back to the premise of my OP.

Let's (as the GOP) look at some low hanging fruit and get that going. Stuff that is unemotional. Stuff that the states should be taking on anyway and get some momentum. With that, things like Health Care are more easily challenged at the federal level (and if all states addressed the issue in one way or another, we might not have the problems we have in delivering insurance).

But to do so is to acknowledge that the federal government isn't the only one that exists. And it is also to acknowledge that people have to take a more active interest in local situations. In this regard our mobile society has not helped us much.

 

[Listening]

In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat". As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.

But. . .kudos to him for a great post.

And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.

The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things. Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role. And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.

Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers. But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition. The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.

And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force. But its roots are entirely constitutional.

It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs. In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.

Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.

You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.

I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.

Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am too tired right now from a really brutal work week, but I will get back on these and other points tomorrow.

I brought up the AF to play Devil's Advocate: I too think that actually, the AF is quite constitutional. Still, no matter how you look at it, the AF is not mentioned in the Constitution and there has been ample time for an amendment to include it.

And the AF is decidedly NOT an outgrowth of the Navy. The first flights were land flights and the first air battles were waged from land stations. Aircraft carriers came later.

My point was, and I am sure you both go it - that the reasoning used to allow the AF as being constitutional is the same reasoning that the Right does NOT like to hear when other issues are being debated as constitutional or not, and then the 10th amendment plug gets pulled in the bathtub... and....

More tomorrow. Sleep well!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Statistikhengst,

You know your short name would be Statist .

Only the funny part about that is that I am definitely not one

 

[Statistikhengst]

Statistikhengst,

I also saw you article had Judicial Review in it. We should save that for a different thread in this forum. That should get some attention (and some people banned) .

L

Got it. Understood. will do.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat". As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.

But. . .kudos to him for a great post.

And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.

The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things. Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role. And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.

Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers. But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition. The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.

And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force. But its roots are entirely constitutional.

It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs. In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.

Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.

You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.

I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.

Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.

I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.

But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.

The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.

 

[Listening]

I am too tired right now from a really brutal work week, but I will get back on these and other points tomorrow.

I brought up the AF to play Devil's Advocate: I too think that actually, the AF is quite constitutional. Still, no matter how you look at it, the AF is not mentioned in the Constitution and there has been ample time for an amendment to include it.

And the AF is decidedly NOT an outgrowth of the Navy. The first flights were land flights and the first air battles were waged from land stations. Aircraft carriers came later.

My point was, and I am sure you both go it - that the reasoning used to allow the AF as being constitutional is the same reasoning that the Right does NOT like to hear when other issues are being debated as constitutional or not, and then the 10th amendment plug gets pulled in the bathtub... and....

More tomorrow. Sleep well!

I don't agree with this entirely....

I'll give you one example I've (admittedly) not studied very well. So I'll let you tell me if I am off base.

The FDR bastard (how's that for poisoning the well ?) SCOTUS somehow managed to come up with the idea of incorporation of the bill of rights. This is a heinous doctrine in my estimation.

However, it serves the purposes of one group that hides under it's skirt and has for a long time.

I am talking the 2nd amendment. You can't be for states soveriegnty, claim that the constitution only limits the federal government and then ask the fed to do your bidding when it comes to gun laws.

It is total hypocricy from my POV. Am I wrong ?