The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 26, 2014.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

    Oh yeah. Lots of problems because one word was left out:
    That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word “expressly” before the word “delegated...
    - CRS LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment

    The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."
    - Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. legaleagle_45
    Offline

    legaleagle_45 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Thanks Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    The rain soaked place
    Ratings:
    +263
    You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    17,867
    Thanks Received:
    1,668
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +9,687
    Yes,

    Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    17,867
    Thanks Received:
    1,668
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +9,687
    Here is the 10th amendment:

    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.

    Nothing ambiguous about that.

    John Marshal was full of crap.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    It isn't one of perspective, it is one of conclusion. Dante may have looked at things through a few perspectives, but had to reach a conclusion.

    Some people bring forth and focus on arguments that ultimately failed to win the day. They do this in the sense of attempting to argue the battles were not decided, concluded, won by one side. It reminds me of those who argue the issues of the American civil war form the side of the Confederacy -- they lost. They signed on to the United States of America. enough

    that said, I may agree with reasonings and arguments that lost. But in the end one view has to prevail and win the day.
     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    The problem is the real world where Americans worked things out and Madison's views on HOW things should work out. Madison lost some and won some as did others. Continually arguing that Madison's view was the one true correct view is silly.
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

    The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.
     
  9. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    17,867
    Thanks Received:
    1,668
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +9,687
    Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

    The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

    Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

    The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

    Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

    As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

    You can shove the rest of your post.

    If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

    It would save us a lot of time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    17,867
    Thanks Received:
    1,668
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +9,687
    Is it your habit to make things up to argue against ?

    I simply pointed out what Madison said which I think counters the idea that the exclusion of the word has some meaning.

    I have not argued against what the real world has arrived at.

    It was one way yesterday, another today and will find yet others in the days to come.

    I came here to have a conversation....if it is your intent to lecture...I'll bow out. I've noticed a lot of people started threads in this forum.

    You must work pretty quick.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

the 10th amendment discussion board in favor of