The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[johnwk]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

 

[OKTexas]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

 

[johnwk]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

Perhaps if the general public were aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to enforce the intent of the founders as it may be documented from historical records, the Supreme Court would not find it so easy to pretend the Constitution means what it wants it to mean.

The fundamental rule of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[SuperDemocrat]

People think nationally because there is more power in it. Who gets excited when your city government is going to solve one of your problems. There is no power in it because you can't make yourself or other people participate in the solution. On the other hand, there is plenty of power on the national level to do so which is why the fascist get excited over national solutions but not solutions on the local level.

Must love power and authority. That seems to be the motto of today's politics.

 

[OKTexas]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

Perhaps if the general public were aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to enforce the intent of the founders as it may be documented from historical records, the Supreme Court would not find it so easy to pretend the Constitution means what it wants it to mean.

The fundamental rule of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unfortunately the vast majority of the people are ambivalent at best or agree with the deconstruction of the Constitution at worse. It will never be reversed so long as regressives maintain control of the education system. Why do you think they fight so hard to keep their lackeys in place? Hillsdale college is the only school I know of that requires credits on constitutional studies to graduate. Hell Harvard stopped requiring it to get a law degree.

 

[regent]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

Perhaps if the general public were aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to enforce the intent of the founders as it may be documented from historical records, the Supreme Court would not find it so easy to pretend the Constitution means what it wants it to mean.

The fundamental rule of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unfortunately the vast majority of the people are ambivalent at best or agree with the deconstruction of the Constitution at worse. It will never be reversed so long as regressives maintain control of the education system. Why do you think they fight so hard to keep their lackeys in place? Hillsdale college is the only school I know of that requires credits on constitutional studies to graduate. Hell Harvard stopped requiring it to get a law degree.

That's great but what does Hillsdale teach about the Constitution, and why only Hillsdale, makes me immediately suspect. I remember the old saw about a new teacher applying for his first job and the principal asking him if he thought the earth was round or flat and the new teacher well versed in the politics of schools said, "Sir, I can teach it either way,"

 

[OKTexas]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

Perhaps if the general public were aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to enforce the intent of the founders as it may be documented from historical records, the Supreme Court would not find it so easy to pretend the Constitution means what it wants it to mean.

The fundamental rule of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unfortunately the vast majority of the people are ambivalent at best or agree with the deconstruction of the Constitution at worse. It will never be reversed so long as regressives maintain control of the education system. Why do you think they fight so hard to keep their lackeys in place? Hillsdale college is the only school I know of that requires credits on constitutional studies to graduate. Hell Harvard stopped requiring it to get a law degree.

That's great but what does Hillsdale teach about the Constitution, and why only Hillsdale, makes me immediately suspect. I remember the old saw about a new teacher applying for his first job and the principal asking him if he thought the earth was round or flat and the new teacher well versed in the politics of schools said, "Sir, I can teach it either way,"

Maybe you should check out their on line courses on the Constitution, they are usually free and see for yourself. Hillsdale is the only school in the US that I'm aware of that accepts no government funds, not even federal student loans. Too many strings come attached. BTW they also offer a free news letter you might find interesting, you can get it on line or hard copy through the mail.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

Yep, great, only we don't need - One Nation, under 50 sets of nitwits either.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

 

[OKTexas]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

 

[Steven_R]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

That might have been the first real test, but it's constitutional...

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OKTexas]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

Proof once again that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founders were naive in thinking only honorable honest people would be appointed to the courts and by not providing checks on them by anyone other than federal officials who have increased their own power using the court. The States need to gain a veto power over the courts via Article 5.

 

[OKTexas]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

That might have been the first real test, but it's constitutional...

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, you expect the court to determine their own abuses of power unconstitutional, will never happen.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"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 the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"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."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

 

[OKTexas]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"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 the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"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."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

 

[regent]

The Marbury case had some legitimacy, but it was Dred Scott that the Court really took over. Today, people now accept the Court's role in the Constitution but the irony of the whole thing is that today some justices want to see in black and white in the Constitution, while in Marbury, the Court declared simply it had the power because it was implied in the Constitution.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 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."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"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 the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"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."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Marbury case had some legitimacy, but it was Dred Scott that the Court really took over. Today, people now accept the Court's role in the Constitution but the irony of the whole thing is that today some justices want to see in black and white in the Constitution, while in Marbury, the Court declared simply it had the power because it was implied in the Constitution.

Actually, Marbury cemented the principle of Judicial Review, a distinct part of the checks and balances of federalism, as thoroughly outlined by Hamilton in Federalist #78 when the Court declared part of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional.

 

[francoHFW]

States rights: Code for conservative corruption, bigotry, and stupidity.