The Tenth Ammendment Problem

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Hobbit, Dec 12, 2006.

  1. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    So, I went looking through the Constitution to see what was there, and I found this.

    I'd seen it before, but I started thinking about it. Apparantly, any power not specifically given to the federal government is supposed to be left to the states or the people. That's funny, becuase there's nothing in the Constitution about providing retirement benefits, health care, art funding, education regulation, minimum wage, welfare, or any of a dozen other things. How are we supposed to trust the government when they are so far outside their constitutional bounds that we might as well bury the whole document and let them do what they want.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    The Federal government is allowed to do anything "necessary and proper". This is pretty well-settled law. And no problem with asking questions, but the Constitition has to be viewed as a whole and each section has to be read in conjunction with every other.

    Interesting though that your only objections seem to be about the things that help people. But there ya go.
     
  3. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    it's actually a democratic ammendment for the 'just in case" situations that come up. But all seriousness interesting find.
     
  4. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    You have it right, at least as far as what is a right and what isn't.... that's why Roe vs. Wade is such a piece of trash.

    Regardless of how you feel about a woman's right to an abortion, it still stinks, this amendment is the reason why. Roe vs. Wade took away the states' right to determine whether abortion should be legal or not.

    Unfortunately, this also means that Brown vs Board of Education (Supreme Court decision that ended segregation) may have been out of bounds in this regard, too. I'm not 100% sure about that, perhaps Avatar or Abbey can enlighten us.

    Further, segregation was brought on by the Supreme Court in Plessey vs Fergusson. That decision used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendement to justify "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains etc for blacks and whites.

    P.S. Yes that equal protection clause is the same one that people who push gay marriage like to refer to. The fact that it was also used to justify segregation is a fact that some pro-gay marriage types would rather you not know about.
     
  5. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,328
    Thanks Received:
    2,018
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,821
    Welcome to American conservatism, Hobbit.

    The 10th amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution's conservatism. Along with the 9th, which says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what's in the Constitution.

    The 10th casts in stone, the idea that the Federal government's powers are strictly limited - that the government is NOT supposed to be our nanny, our mother and father, or all the other things modern liberals want it to be.

    Unsurprisingly, the 10th is the most-violated part of the Constitution, by liberals in both major parties. These violations came to a head in the mid-1930s, when then-President FDR kept trying to implement huge programs of Federal "help" for people suffering in the Great Depression. The Supreme Court kept finding them unconstitutional, violating the 10th amendment, though the decisions were often 6-3 or even 5-4.

    FDR started an incredible campaign of personal attacks against the nine justices, blaming them directly for the suffering. He finally threatened to add six more justices to the Court, picked by him for their loyalty to his nanny-state ideals rather than for any fealty to the Constitution, of course, to overrule the law-abiding justices.

    Two weeks later, one of the law-abiders caved, and wrote the opinion in a 5-4 decision upholding a minimum wage. In it, he invented a new definition of "liberty", which included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life... and of course, the Federal govt IS supposed to legislate to protect our "liberty", is it not? This gave them carte blanche to legislate on virtually any subject in any area, whether explicitly listed in the Constitution or not. The other four law-abiders screamed their heads off in protest, but they were now in the minority. A deluge of cases followed, all decided in favor of the Nanny State mentality, and government began exploding from that point. (That pivotal case was West Coast Hotel v. Parrish). Liberals have never looked back.

    Yes, the 10th says what it says. But not many left in our government, pay much attention to it any more.
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    It's the interpretation of far too many that the objections "help" people. Teaching people to expect and force others to take care of them IS the liberal poison that's killing our country.
     
  7. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Ah, you mean the well-named 'elastic clause.' That is not carte blanche for the federal government to turn our country socialist. Oh, and as for 'helping' people, none of the crap I mentioned helps anybody but politicians, and if you think otherwise, then you need to take a basic macroeconomics course and start looking at the bigger picture.

    Oh, and the elastic clause also does not override the 10th ammendment. The ammendment came later, and, according to constitutional law, ammendments override the original letter of the constitution, just like the 16th ammendment overrides the constitutional prohibition on taxing individuals and the 21st overrides the 18th.
     
  8. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,328
    Thanks Received:
    2,018
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,821
    jillian carefully left out the part of the "necessary and proper" clause, that limits what Congress can actually do. Liberals always do that, since the full quote bans most of their agenda.

    The full quote comes at the end of the section where the Constitution lists the powers the Fed CAN have. And it says:

    Congress shall have the power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution...

    In other words, the n&p clause merely reaffirms that Congress can only make laws in the areas specified by the Constitution. NOT in any area jillian feels like because she thinks it will "help".

    We'll probably get into the misquotes of the "welfare clause" and the pretzel-like twists of the "commerce clause" soon, too. It's amazing just how much liberals will distort the Constitution in their quest for government-uber-alles.
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    If you want to respond to me, you can feel free to respond directly and not in the third person.

    I "left out" those words because they aren't relevant to the Court's determination of this issue. As for the commerce clause, it's been pretty heavily construed... perhaps a bit too heavily... but maybe not. Should be taken on a case-by-case basis, no?

    As for the "liberal" thing you like tossing around so much, if you think that you guys aren't trying to make the Court political with all your talk about changing the way the Constitution has always been construed, that's kind of disingenuous.

    Just out of curiosity, you seem to have a pretty detailed interest in this. What do you do for a living?
     
  10. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    So, the court says that doing something outside of the bounds of the Constitution is 'necessary and proper,' totally ignoring the part where it says you can't do that, and the entire quote that expressly forbids the way they ruled is just called irrelevant. The law says I can kill people in self-defense, given that a lethal reaction was an appropriate response. Can I call the second half irrelevant and kill somebody who's trying to give me a wedgie? I mean, I am defending myself.
     

Share This Page