The Wall Between Federal and State Governments

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

The US Federal Government has, as I recall 17 enumerated powers. The problem is since the Civil War no new Amendments have been created granting new POWER to the Fed, they just take it by stretching the meaning of the enumerated powers. Two of the biggest frauds are the claims of what is covered by the Commerce Clause and the claim now that the preamble to the listed enumerated powers granted a General Welfare clause giving Congress unlimited power to do as it pleases in violation of the very premise of the Constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

The US Federal Government has, as I recall 17 enumerated powers. The problem is since the Civil War no new Amendments have been created granting new POWER to the Fed, they just take it by stretching the meaning of the enumerated powers. Two of the biggest frauds are the claims of what is covered by the Commerce Clause and the claim now that the preamble to the listed enumerated powers granted a General Welfare clause giving Congress unlimited power to do as it pleases in violation of the very premise of the Constitution.

I agree with you but the point I was trying to make is that there is a wall between the two governments. It is not possible for the federal government to pass a law limiting drug use (I'm using that as an example) because it is not one of the 17 powers. Does this mean that illegalizing drug use is unconstitional? Only on a federal level because states have that role themselves (unless their own constitution prevents that from happening). That was the point I was tying to make.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LII: Constitution

The left and those power grabbers all would have you believe that the opening paragraph to this section grants a General Welfare clause, giving to the federal Government the right and power to do anything at all they deem in the general welfare of the Country. In other words, a clause of unlimited power that belays the very need to list the 17 powers following in the section.

It does no such thing, it refers to the 17 powers granted as being justified because THEY promote the General Welfare of the United States.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The very defense of the Constitution by those that wrote it was that the Constitution needed no protections listed for the States or the people because the Constitution only granted very limited powers to the Federal Government. This so called General Welfare claim would belay the entire defense laid by the framers and writers and supporters of the Constitution when it was written.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

The US Federal Government has, as I recall 17 enumerated powers. The problem is since the Civil War no new Amendments have been created granting new POWER to the Fed, they just take it by stretching the meaning of the enumerated powers. Two of the biggest frauds are the claims of what is covered by the Commerce Clause and the claim now that the preamble to the listed enumerated powers granted a General Welfare clause giving Congress unlimited power to do as it pleases in violation of the very premise of the Constitution.

I agree with you but the point I was trying to make is that there is a wall between the two governments. It is not possible for the federal government to pass a law limiting drug use (I'm using that as an example) because it is not one of the 17 powers. Does this mean that illegalizing drug use is unconstitional? Only on a federal level because states have that role themselves (unless their own constitution prevents that from happening). That was the point I was tying to make.

I happen to disagree on that claim. Drug running is by nature a crime that involves crossing State and Country borders. falling clearly in the power of the Federal Government.

Further using your claim one could claim the Federal Government has no authority over drug makers at all if they only make and dispense the drug inside a State line.

However I would support an amendment designed to specifically state the Federal Government has this authority as it would eliminate the argument completely.

 

[ihopehefails]

My argument against the broad interpretation of the general welfare clause is that In order for any law to be constitutional it has to pass all sections of the constitution so what happens when that law is ran through the enumerated powers section? It must also pass that section's test as well so the general welfare clause must also be within in the confines of the enumerated powers of the federal constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

Who said I was trying to legalize drugs. It would still be illegal at the state level.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Further using your claim one could claim the Federal Government has no authority over drug makers at all if they only make and dispense the drug inside a State line.

Gunny....this is in fact true. This very concept is being used by gun makers in a State...I forget which one....that says the federal government has no right to regulate firearms manufactured and sold within said State and only to bonafide residents of said State in an attempt to usurp federal firearms restrictions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Further using your claim one could claim the Federal Government has no authority over drug makers at all if they only make and dispense the drug inside a State line.

Gunny....this is in fact true. This very concept is being used by gun makers in a State...I forget which one....that says the federal government has no right to regulate firearms manufactured and sold within said State and only to bonafide residents of said State in an attempt to usurp federal firearms restrictions.

Not the same. So long as the firearm is manufactured inside the State and is not exported to another State it is not interstate trade. Drugs fall in a different category because of the use of said drugs. We have a 2nd Amendment which states everyone has a right to keep and bear arms.

But that is why I would recommend an amendment making drugs a Federal power no matter what, covers any loop holes nicely.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.

You would be wrong. The Federal Government has always been supreme in the areas it has authority over, the Constitution makes that plain. The Civil War did not change the Constitution nor did it suddenly create powers that never existed. The Civil War did make the Fed THINK they could ignore the Constitution, that is true. But even then the worst of it did not occur until FDR was President.

I suggest you actually READ the Constitution as you obviously have no CLUE what it says, nor what power and authority it conveys and to whom.

 

[goldcatt]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

I see we have yet another poster cherry-picking to come up with an unsupportably narrow conclusion.
If the Federal and State governments were never allowed to exercize the same powers, there would have been no need for the Supremacy Clause.
Never mind that the 10th itself explicitly contradicts your claim, let alone your apparent ignorance of the 9th, 5th, 14th, et al. and the P&I Clause, FF&C Clause and several others in the original articles of the document itself. If all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government were reserved exclusively to the States, there would be no individual freedoms or rights other than those each State saw fit to allow, and no enforcement of those rights except in a piecemeal fashion as each State saw fit.
As the brief and failed experiment in Confederacy proved, there can be no coherent nation capable of acting as a whole where multiple leaders drag a single follower in 13 - or 50 - separate and self-serving directions in their pursuit of wealth and power over each other.
The followers are not to be powerless, the Constitution read PROPERLY sets up a balance. But the balance must tip in the direction of the Federal in order to maintain a coherent unit called a "Nation", rather than a loose collection of feuding banana republics devouring wach other while waiting to be devoured in their turn.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this fad of using a combination of Randian philosophy and Anti-Federalist rhetoric is a fallacy completely unsupported by the document, the history, the people who created our system and the evolution of that system over time through the Amendment process.

 

[editec]

It amazes me that I can find so many constiutional scholars on this board.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It amazes me that I can find so many constiutional scholars on this board.

It amazes me that you think only someone with a degree or certificates can have a reasoned intelligent discussion about something as basic as the Constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is a "contract" signed among sovereign states that have all legal authority over their own borders with only a few exceptions that are defined within the enumerated powers of the constitution itself and the tenth amendment specifically says that all powers are reserved for the states with the exception of powers delegated to the federal government (such as declaring war) and things the constitution prohibits states from doing (such as states minting their own money).

This creates a separation (or wall) of legal authority between the state and federal government because it prohibits states to undertake powers delegated to the federal government but also states that all undefined powers (or unwritten powers in the constitution) are reserved for the states. A power will either belong to the federal government or will belong to the state government but can never belong to both at the same time.

The only legal authority the federal government has over our own lives is enforcing powers granted to it in the constitution while all other legal authority outside the limited defined powers of the federal constitution is reserved for the state governments. This gives each individual state government almost all legal authority over our lives while the federal government has very little authority since it only has a few limited powers granted to it in the constitution.

I see we have yet another poster cherry-picking to come up with an unsupportably narrow conclusion.
If the Federal and State governments were never allowed to exercize the same powers, there would have been no need for the Supremacy Clause.
Never mind that the 10th itself explicitly contradicts your claim, let alone your apparent ignorance of the 9th, 5th, 14th, et al. and the P&I Clause, FF&C Clause and several others in the original articles of the document itself. If all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government were reserved exclusively to the States, there would be no individual freedoms or rights other than those each State saw fit to allow, and no enforcement of those rights except in a piecemeal fashion as each State saw fit.
As the brief and failed experiment in Confederacy proved, there can be no coherent nation capable of acting as a whole where multiple leaders drag a single follower in 13 - or 50 - separate and self-serving directions in their pursuit of wealth and power over each other.
The followers are not to be powerless, the Constitution read PROPERLY sets up a balance. But the balance must tip in the direction of the Federal in order to maintain a coherent unit called a "Nation", rather than a loose collection of feuding banana republics devouring wach other while waiting to be devoured in their turn.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this fad of using a combination of Randian philosophy and Anti-Federalist rhetoric is a fallacy completely unsupported by the document, the history, the people who created our system and the evolution of that system over time through the Amendment process.

I believe that the 5th amendment applies to the actions that the federal government can take such as the FBI arresting you and the 14th amendment gives the federal government the right to forbid states from violating someone's rights. Those are all within in the scope of the legal powers of the federal government because the tenth amendment only allows the federal government to interfere with states when the constitution specifically forbids them from taking that action.

Since the powers of the states are undefined it practically gives them more leeway than the federal government ever has and since the federal constitution also says that each state must have a republic (constitutional form of government) which further limits the powers of that state government it frees the people within each state from an oppressive government.

 

[ihopehefails]

If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.

The Civil War did not change the constitution.

 

[lawbuff]

We have a 2nd Amendment which states everyone has a right to keep and bear arms.

Not as yet, the current case before the SC court will decide that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.

The Civil War did not change the constitution.

The outcome of the war certainly changed the relationship of the states (inferior) to the national government (superior). Whether you like it, whether you think it is unconstitutional -- doesn't matter. It is what it is, and it will not change back.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If we were living before the Civil War, all the above would be true. However, the war settled all that. The national government is supreme, the general welfare clause is paramount, and the interstate commerce clause permits the feds to intrude into state affairs. Thus, while it is fun to consider 'back then', we live in the 'here now', and the old ways are not coming again. Thank heavens.

The Civil War did not change the constitution.

The outcome of the war certainly changed the relationship of the states (inferior) to the national government (superior). Whether you like it, whether you think it is unconstitutional -- doesn't matter. It is what it is, and it will not change back.

Your whole argument for a central politbureau is ludicrous Starkey....that's why we have elections. When Obama fucks up on State's rights issues he will be voted out of office and the balance will be restored.

That's why we call our form of government a representative democracy with a system of checks and balances.