Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 26, 2014.
I guess the question is....have you ?
You would not ask that question if you had.
Which is a load of crapp.
Marshall's winning views got us the Civil War.
Now we are quoting a case that was decided over 200 years post ratification.
What a freaking joke.
What's more funny is this whole manufactured argument of states ignoring Federal Laws.
The constitution assumes the federal government would stay in it's appointed sandbox.
Also consider that pre-17th amendment the states had a role in making national law and were in a position to guard their own interests.
are you saying the states have no say in the making of federal law?
Really? The constitution 'assumes?'
The Tenth confirms the viewpoint of all the states that ratified the original Constitution, to wit, the Federal government was established in order to handle the governmental functions that made sense for a central body, tying together a number of disparate "states." These functions are basically detailed in Article I, Section 8.
The States retained EVERYTHING ELSE. Everything else, including commercial law, family law, real estate law, criminal law, professional licensing, and on and on.
As an illustration of the Federal government's impotence outside it's specific charter, consider the Uniform Commercial Code. The "General Welfare" crowd (those who believe the Feds can do anything Congress deems will promote the "general welfare") would suppose that the Congress could enact a national commercial law, so that merchants would not have to learn and abide by the different commercial laws in 50+ states. And yet the Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from passing such a law(!). Chaos is prevented because each of the 50 states has individually passed an identical law, promulgated by the national commercial law bar. Congress has nothing to say about it.
For recent application of the Tenth, consider the USSC's recent deliberations on the "Individual Mandate" of O'Bama-Care. CONGRESS LACKS THE POWER TO DEMAND that anyone purchase health insurance. If Congress had that power, the case never would have made it to the USSC. The Court perversely ruled that the amount that the Administration said was NOT a tax, actually WAS a tax. Had it been a fee or a penalty, it would have resulted in the fee being struck down UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. (Congress DOES have the power to tax, for whatever reason it likes).
Separate names with a comma.