The 10th Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Hopefully posts like this will prevent other conservatives from claiming to be Constitutionalists when in fact they want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.

You know you have no way of proving any of your statement, above, to be true.
Ironic, given your constant claim that conservatives deal in falsehoods and propaganda.

 

[Listening]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Thanks Shawn.

While I agree, let me ask you what you think is a place where the courts have overstepped (just to get things going) ?

Rep on the way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which, of course, is your right.
It simply clogs the thread with drivel. You really don't think you will ever get a direct answer to your questions...do you ?

We all - and by that, I mean, you, him and me - know that he cannot provide any such direct answer.

My point is that this is the CDZ. I'd really like to see more posts related to the topic. You are not the only one to get locked with her. It isn't worth the effort.

I, for one, would like the points that I brought up addressed in a meaninful manner, maybe even with a sound response.
Looks like we're both waiting for a train that will never arrive.

 

[PMZ]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Hopefully posts like this will prevent other conservatives from claiming to be Constitutionalists when in fact they want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.

You know you have no way of proving any of your statement, above, to be true.
Ironic, given your constant claim that conservatives deal in falsehoods and propaganda.

You don't believe conservatives have ever claimed Constitutionalism?

That’s bizarre.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hopefully posts like this will prevent other conservatives from claiming to be Constitutionalists when in fact they want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.

You know you have no way of proving any of your statement, above, to be true.
Ironic, given your constant claim that conservatives deal in falsehoods and propaganda.

You don't believe conservatives have ever claimed Constitutionalism?
That’s bizarre.

I accept your concession of the point, that you know you cannot show where conservatives want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.

 

[PMZ]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "

The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.

We either live by it or throw it away.

I think that it would be good for conservatives to publically propose throwing it away as you suggest. I'm pretty sure that I know how America will react and that's why I don't let people to claim one thing yet believe another.

 

[Listening]

Hopefully posts like this will prevent other conservatives from claiming to be Constitutionalists when in fact they want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.

You know you have no way of proving any of your statement, above, to be true.
Ironic, given your constant claim that conservatives deal in falsehoods and propaganda.

You don't believe conservatives have ever claimed Constitutionalism?

That’s bizarre.

We know that the left certainly never did claim to care about the COTUS.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.

Take the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.

The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.

Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.

And so forth. . . .

The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.

The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.

That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.

This is incorrect though. The second amendment DOES NOT specify the feds. It states directly "shall not be infringed." Further, the constitution allows for change because the founders were not so arrogant as to think they got everything correct or that the constitution could brook no change. Incorporation does not use the founders original intent to justify such a ruling. It is clear that was not the original intent for the reasons that you specified. The fourteenth amendment, however, was ratified and is as much a part of the constitution as the BoR. That has been the justification for incorporation.

If you want to frame an argument against incorporation, you cannot use the founders original intent because such intent has been changed legally and s the founders laid out in the constitution.

As I stated before, I believe in protected rights and think that we did right in the fourteenth amendment. Do you disagree with the change made?

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

We can concede that the Second Amendment is worded differently than the First, but if we take it that this refers to ANYBODY infringing rights rather than the federal government, then how do you justify laws that prohibit taking a firearm into a bar, a school, a courthuse, or on an airplane? Some common sense has to prevail here as well as original intent. But it is crystal clear that they intended that the FEDERAL government would make no law infringing our right to carry firearms and/or defend ourselves against whomever, including our own government should it come to that.

Laws? For the most part we cannot. The vast majority of those laws are wrong. The real rub here is that common sense should come into the picture with simple amendments in the constitution. Amendments that outline the fact that the government has certain powers in public spaces and addressed the fact that there are more than simple muskets in people’s arms today.

Instead – we have opted for the easy way out and had the courts decide how to change the constitution, a function that they are not designed to do.

Also, I would point out that stating that ‘ANYBODY’ is not what I stated. This is specifically addressed to government (in all its forms to include the states) and not to people in general. That gun free bar can just as easily be gun free because the owner demands it.

As for the Founders knowing we would get it wrong, screw it up, make mistakes, yes, you are right. And they knew that an evolving and growing society would need to change or amend the Constitution which is why they wrote a process into the Constitution to do that.

And that was my point along with the fact that one such correction was embodied in the fourteenth amendment. The entire reasoning behind incorporation and why the founder’s original intent in relation to protected rights is irrelevant – that original intent was CHANGED.

I was gathering from your posts that you disagreed with incorporation and the protections it provides to rights outlined in the constitution from overbearing state governments. If that is not your stance, then what were you trying to get across in the last few posts that we were debating?

 

[FA_Q2]

This article sums it up pretty well.
My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

You forget.... the GOP mainstream is a center/center-left party; as such, their adherece to the principles of federalism is far from absolute.

fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
b. Advocacy of such a system of government.
2. Federalism The doctrine of the Federalist Party.

Add "federalism" to "democracy" and "republic" as words that the lunatic fringe want to redefine.

The ‘lunatic fringe?’
YOU are the one attempting to redefine federalism. Your arguments all over this board (not to mention this very thread) have completely thrown federalism out the window. Today’s liberals see the states as mere extensions of the federal government, subservient to its demands. It is why you blow the tenth’s real purpose off. You completely ignored this part:
A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
Currently, power IS NOT divided. The central government retains ultimate power over the states. The supremacy clause is constantly used by the left to obliterate this concept without addressing the fact that the federal government is supposed to only have that supremacy in areas that it actually has powers over as outlined in the constitution. Instead, the nation has been marched away from that idea into a system where the federal government makes the rules and leaves things to the states until it changes its mind. That is NOT division of power. If that were the case then a feudal system would be an example of a federal system. We know that it is not.


When you speak of redefining of terms, you are completely misrepresenting reality.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.



Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.



After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Thanks Shawn.



While I agree, let me ask you what you think is a place where the courts have overstepped (just to get things going) ?



Rep on the way.

The most recent example is the ACA. Am I glad that SCOTUS hinted at the unconstitutionality if it? Yes. But then Roberts AMENDED the law by defining the mandate as a tax. I see that as an important point only because the MSM has cited SCOTUS as upholding the ACA.

Yet even if I agree or disagree with SCOTUS, it is not the job not the original purpose of SCOTUS to alter or justify laws. Merely enforce them. It is the purpose if congress to define laws that can be followed without 'interpretation'.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "

The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.

We either live by it or throw it away.

I think that it would be good for conservatives to publically propose throwing it away as you suggest. I'm pretty sure that I know how America will react and that's why I don't let people to claim one thing yet believe another.

It seems that you contradict yourself in the post. The original intent was the constitution. Yet only recently has SCOTUS begin to interpret laws. So the design was changed by SCOTUS, long after the founders design.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "
The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.
We either live by it or throw it away.

Still waiting for you to cite the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation involving health care.

 

[Listening]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.



Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.



After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Thanks Shawn.



While I agree, let me ask you what you think is a place where the courts have overstepped (just to get things going) ?



Rep on the way.

The most recent example is the ACA. Am I glad that SCOTUS hinted at the unconstitutionality if it? Yes. But then Roberts AMENDED the law by defining the mandate as a tax. I see that as an important point only because the MSM has cited SCOTUS as upholding the ACA.

Yet even if I agree or disagree with SCOTUS, it is not the job not the original purpose of SCOTUS to alter or justify laws. Merely enforce them. It is the purpose if congress to define laws that can be followed without 'interpretation'.

Agreed.

But that means that the SCOTUS could have also said there was nothing for them to rule against and just leave it alone. At that point, each state could have essentially killed it with other laws and the SCOTUS again would have left it alone.

Roe is certainly a place where the SCOTUS stepped into something it had no place in. Abortion had been the purview of the states for over a century.

And let's not get started with the MoFo's that FDR appointed so his precious depression extending "New Screw (of the people)" could be kept in statue.

 

[Listening]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "
The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.
We either live by it or throw it away.

Still waiting for you to cite the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation involving health care.

I was just reading some stuff on the Supremacy Clause. I was wondering if the left utilized this gem as justification ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "
The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.
We either live by it or throw it away.

Still waiting for you to cite the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation involving health care.

I was just reading some stuff on the Supremacy Clause. I was wondering if the left utilized this gem as justification ?

Um... how so?

 

[FA_Q2]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "
The original intent was the Constitution. It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design.
We either live by it or throw it away.

Still waiting for you to cite the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation involving health care.

You won't get it because he has already provided it MANY pages ago. The core problem is not that he does not have the clause but that he reads the constitution in a warped and incorrect manner. The left in general views the constitution as a document outlining what the government cannot do - a correct reading of the BoR but NOT the articles -rather than what the government CAN do. IOW, the left bellies the government can do anything that it wants as long as it is not specifically denied that power. Unfortunately, that earnestly means that the constitution is meanings as that interpretation gives the government ultimate power.

The moss of thing about it is that the one area where that is a valid concept (the BoR), that thought process is abandoned.

It is the problem that most of these debates have - we are speaking two different languages.
Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Foxfyre]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Okay maybe without professional derail the train trolls less active, we can refocus on an interesting topic?

It is a fact that both TR Roosevelt and FDR packed the courts with administration friendly judges who would reward those appointments by giving the President what he wanted from them. And of course what both wanted was to change the most important thing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment were intended to do: limit the size and scope of the federal goverment.

TRR stood the Constitution on his head when, with the assistance of those judges, he declared that the federal government was not restricted by what the Constitution allowed it to do, but was restricted only by what the Constitution specifically forbade it to do. That in effect did away with the 10th Amendment. And TRR was so personally popular, that even those who were frightened by this power grab were afraid to strongly oppose him.

That is what started the snowball rolling, small and unalarming at first. It got a huge shove with FDR's new deal and has been picking up size and speed ever since until it has become this enormous, ever expanding, unfathomable, and unmanageable, and apparently unstoppable monstrosity of a government that we now have.

 

[Listening]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Okay maybe without professional derail the train trolls less active, we can refocus on an interesting topic?

It is a fact that both TR Roosevelt and FDR packed the courts with administration friendly judges who would reward those appointments by giving the President what he wanted from them. And of course what both wanted was to change the most important thing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment were intended to do: limit the size and scope of the federal goverment.

TRR stood the Constitution on his head when, with the assistance of those judges, he declared that the federal government was not restricted by what the Constitution allowed it to do, but was restricted only by what the Constitution specifically forbade it to do. That in effect did away with the 10th Amendment. And TRR was so personally popular, that even those who were frightened by this power grab were afraid to strongly oppose him.

That is what started the snowball rolling, small and unalarming at first. It got a huge shove with FDR's new deal and has been picking up size and speed ever since until it has become this enormous, ever expanding, unfathomable, and unmanageable, and apparently unstoppable monstrosity of a government that we now have.

I guess that was the point of the OP, Fox. Will Republicans start acting like the 10th means anything. If they do, it will have to be at a local level.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.

Okay maybe without professional derail the train trolls less active, we can refocus on an interesting topic?

It is a fact that both TR Roosevelt and FDR packed the courts with administration friendly judges who would reward those appointments by giving the President what he wanted from them. And of course what both wanted was to change the most important thing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment were intended to do: limit the size and scope of the federal goverment.

TRR stood the Constitution on his head when, with the assistance of those judges, he declared that the federal government was not restricted by what the Constitution allowed it to do, but was restricted only by what the Constitution specifically forbade it to do. That in effect did away with the 10th Amendment. And TRR was so personally popular, that even those who were frightened by this power grab were afraid to strongly oppose him.

That is what started the snowball rolling, small and unalarming at first. It got a huge shove with FDR's new deal and has been picking up size and speed ever since until it has become this enormous, ever expanding, unfathomable, and unmanageable, and apparently unstoppable monstrosity of a government that we now have.

I guess that was the point of the OP, Fox. Will Republicans start acting like the 10th means anything. If they do, it will have to be at a local level.

The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats so far as looking to their own self interest--their power, prestige, influence, longevity that produces massive wealth, etc.--as are the Democrats. This is not a partisan issue and I lose respect for anybody who tries to make it a partisan issue. This is an American issue. A freedom issue. And if the 10th is to mean anything, it has to be we the people using what very little power is left to us who demands that it be restored as intended. As long as we try to blame the other guy and make excuses while demonizing this group or that group and don't assume the responsibility the Constitution tried to give us, we are screwed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay maybe without professional derail the train trolls less active, we can refocus on an interesting topic?

It is a fact that both TR Roosevelt and FDR packed the courts with administration friendly judges who would reward those appointments by giving the President what he wanted from them. And of course what both wanted was to change the most important thing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment were intended to do: limit the size and scope of the federal goverment.

TRR stood the Constitution on his head when, with the assistance of those judges, he declared that the federal government was not restricted by what the Constitution allowed it to do, but was restricted only by what the Constitution specifically forbade it to do. That in effect did away with the 10th Amendment. And TRR was so personally popular, that even those who were frightened by this power grab were afraid to strongly oppose him.

That is what started the snowball rolling, small and unalarming at first. It got a huge shove with FDR's new deal and has been picking up size and speed ever since until it has become this enormous, ever expanding, unfathomable, and unmanageable, and apparently unstoppable monstrosity of a government that we now have.

I guess that was the point of the OP, Fox. Will Republicans start acting like the 10th means anything. If they do, it will have to be at a local level.

The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats so far as looking to their own self interest--their power, prestige, influence, longevity that produces massive wealth, etc.--as are the Democrats. This is not a partisan issue and I lose respect for anybody who tries to make it a partisan issue. This is an American issue. A freedom issue. And if the 10th is to mean anything, it has to be we the people using what very little power is left to us who demands that it be restored as intended. As long as we try to blame the other guy and make excuses while demonizing this group or that group and don't assume the responsibility the Constitution tried to give us, we are screwed.

This. It is what I was stating way earlier - the Republican party as a whole simply is no better. They have defended big government cronyism almost as fervently as the democrats. There is where change needs to start, within the party or with a new one. Yes, the local level is also where you stay this but the running theme grip the OP has been how republicans change this and I think that unfortunately the republicans are part of the problem.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2