The Abandoned Child: The 10th Amendment

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.

I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.

I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.

No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.

 

[dblack]

Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.

I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.

Guess again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.

So, wherein lies my ignorance on the issue?

Enthrall us.

 

[dblack]

No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.

So, wherein lies my ignorance on the issue?

Enthrall us.

Congress voted to ignore the 10th. The Court let them. Clayton refers to this as "case law".

 

[PratchettFan]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Do you have something specific in mind?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Do you have something specific in mind?

"Just Say No."

 

[RKMBrown]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

Please expound.

 

[RKMBrown]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

Please expound.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part do you want to talk about?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

Please expound.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part do you want to talk about?

Well, let's talk about that part. How does that support, or even have anything to do with your claim that the 14th usurps the 10th?

 

[RKMBrown]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

Please expound.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part do you want to talk about?

Well, let's talk about that part. How does that support, or even have anything to do with your claim that the 14th usurps the 10th?

Prior to the 14th the fed could not send money to the states for the purpose of depriving life, liberty, and property with due process of law. Prior to the 14th the states could deny equal protection of the laws to any person within it's jurisdiction. Prior to the 14th the states ruled citizens independently. After.. they became willing partners with the feds in cases where our rights can be taken from us indiscriminately... and they lost all power to discriminate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since the advent of the Republic it was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution and Federal laws were the supreme law of the land, where the Tenth Amendment in no way mitigates that fact:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Constitution Article VI, Section 2

McCulloch v. Maryland:

“The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.”

McCulloch v. Maryland Case Brief Summary

US v. Darby:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
[…]
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Cooper v. Aaron:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states which are completely devoid of the 'authority' to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts.

The Tenth Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the states to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts, the notion that the Amendment 'empowers' the states to do so is unfounded ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, as a fact of Constitutional law, the OP is wrong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.

Please expound.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part do you want to talk about?

Well, let's talk about that part. How does that support, or even have anything to do with your claim that the 14th usurps the 10th?

Prior to the 14th the fed could not send money to the states for the purpose of depriving life, liberty, and property with due process of law. Prior to the 14th the states could deny equal protection of the laws to any person within it's jurisdiction. Prior to the 14th the states ruled citizens independently. After.. they became willing partners with the feds in cases where our rights can be taken from us indiscriminately... and they lost all power to discriminate.

This is most interesting study you're proffering, because this discussion does not concern individual rights or discrimination or anything of the like, but rather the limits of the authority of the federal government as limited by the 10th Amendment, which remains in force and therefore, the law of the land.

The only amendment overturned by another was the 18th, by the 21st.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Since the advent of the Republic it was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution and Federal laws were the supreme law of the land, where the Tenth Amendment in no way mitigates that fact:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Constitution Article VI, Section 2

McCulloch v. Maryland:

“The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.”

McCulloch v. Maryland Case Brief Summary

US v. Darby:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
[…]
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Cooper v. Aaron:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states which are completely devoid of the 'authority' to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts.

The Tenth Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the states to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts, the notion that the Amendment 'empowers' the states to do so is unfounded ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, as a fact of Constitutional law, the OP is wrong.

The courts cannot nullify amendments.

 

[PratchettFan]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Do you have something specific in mind?

"Just Say No."

An ad campaign is a violation of the 10th? I'm not following that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Do you have something specific in mind?

"Just Say No."

An ad campaign is a violation of the 10th? I'm not following that.

Dat's funny. He asked for specifics.

I suggested non-compliance.

 

[PratchettFan]

"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."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

Do you have something specific in mind?

"Just Say No."

An ad campaign is a violation of the 10th? I'm not following that.

Dat's funny. He asked for specifics.

I suggested non-compliance.

So you can't specify where they is actually happening? Then why mention it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So you can't specify where they is actually happening? Then why mention it?

You seem to be communicating from a different planet. They is WHAT happening?