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
    Oh, I see!

    You just post things. You inform us all. You point things out.

    We will not question you ever ever again. please, accept our apologies with your forgiveness
     
  2. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    You asked the question asshole.

    You got an answer.......

    "Just pointed it out" was one of the options.

    Good grief...
     
  3. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    It's clear that CJ isn't going to summarize his point. More likely he can't.

    If you want to try, I'm all ears.

    Cracks me up that States can't deny people their rights....but the federal government did (women could not vote).

    States like Wyoming were allowing women to vote in local elections some 50 years prior to the passage of the 19th.

    What a crock
     
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,044
    Thanks Received:
    10,078
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,582
    We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

    It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.
     
  5. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    You mean....like the right to vote.
     
  6. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    It's nice you bring this up.

    You are correct that the far right has blathered about that for years and years....not that it affected anything...I guess it makes them feel good.

    My question is...just what the hell has that got to do with the thread ?

    Or did you need to get something off of your chest ?

    And that was with respect to your first paragraph. No body can argue we are not there.

    As to your second paragraph...it clearly is in dispute by many.

    Not sure what they expect to accomplish....
     
  7. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    It is amazing that people even consider the argument presented in the OP.

    A revolutionary war was fought to get out from a strong central government.

    After the war, a government was formed under the Articles of Confederation.....a weak government that could not sustain itself.

    That was a reflection of people at the time. NO STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

    Then they figured out it didn't work.

    So they formed another government. It was sold as a limited government. That is how things were written.

    To state that the federal government was to be supreme in all matters is to ask why they bothered to call it the "The United States of Amercia" instead of just calling it America.
     
  8. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    As I continue to work through this......

    Here is from Madison in Federalist 46:

    On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    So, I suppose you could say that Madison pretty clearly disputes your claim. The whole business of protecting rights is actually addressed in 46 and again...Madison says the states will be sufficient to do this.
     
  9. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    Yes, we just quoted the so called original intent....and it slap Marshall down.

    You have always shown yourself to be lacking when it come to any knowledge of the constitution.

    BTW: Case law says what the courts are now following...not what was intended.
     
  10. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    No one ever said anything about nullifying laws.

    It does say that the Federal government has limited scope.

    But let them trample it as they please. You turds really don't care.

    Let a state step forward and say..."hey wait a minute" and you ready to send in the army.

    Quoting a case from 160 post ratification.....?? Please.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

the 10th amendment discussion board in favor of