The 10th Amendment

[Foxfyre]

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

Well I won't go so far as to say they are no better. I only said they aren't less corrupt.

They do have better ideas and they do by accident probably leave more to the states and local communities as the Founders intended. It isn't because they are more moral or ethical. They just happen to represent a constituency that demands things that produce better government than what the Democrats demand.

 

[Listening]

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.

O.K.

O.K.

Let's take the term Republican out of it. Let's just say people who believe in small government. Not a conservative.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

O.K.

O.K.

Let's take the term Republican out of it. Let's just say people who believe in small government. Not a conservative.

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

 

[BlackSand]

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

The way you make it mean more … Is by making it mean something in the first place.

We cannot expect people to to uniformly negotiate what they believe as the separation between Federal Rights and States Right without substantial leadership in organization.
Any number of citizens could choose to test the ability of the Federal Government to overstep its bounds … And several have done so with some success.
This just doesn't translate into mass movement on popular issue because more individuals don't want to take the time, effort and money necessary to fight the government.

What it means is that States are going to have to start putting their citizens above what they are unwilling to fight for.

Take for instance the State of South Carolina and H.3101 (still sitting in their Senate, but has passed 28-16).
H.3101 is the South Carolina Freedom of Healthcare Protection Act … And essentially disregards parts of the ACA that it views as Unconstitutional.

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF HEALTH CARE PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38 SO AS TO RENDER NULL AND VOID CERTAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TAKING CONTROL OVER THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND MANDATING THAT INDIVIDUALS PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER THREAT OF PENALTY; TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM ENFORCING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS; AND TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATING THIS ARTICLE.

2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online

Only when State Legislatures and Governors step up and start taking responsibility for the protection of their own rights ... And the rights of their citizens ... Will there ever be a difference.

Governor Nikki Haley wants to help the people in her state.
The Governor wants to be in South Carolina and take care of South Carolina's business ... Doesn't so much care about approval from Washington or getting elected on the national scene.

If the states aren't willing to support the efforts of the people they represent ... Then each citizen within that state is obligated to replace their own representatives with someone who will do the job that needs to be done.

We have far more influence within our own state governments and our communities than we do on the national level.
You have a greater chance of shaking the tree in your own backyard than trying to chop one down in Washington ... Get together with your neighbors and you can start making short work of that tree.

Why should we as individuals have to worry about fighting the Federal Government over States Rights ... If the States won't stand up for themselves to start with?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

The way you make it mean more … Is by making it mean something in the first place.

We cannot expect people to to uniformly negotiate what they believe as the separation between Federal Rights and States Right without substantial leadership in organization.
Any number of citizens could choose to test the ability of the Federal Government to overstep its bounds … And several have done so with some success.
This just doesn't translate into mass movement on popular issue because more individuals don't want to take the time, effort and money necessary to fight the government.

What it means is that States are going to have to start putting their citizens above what they are unwilling to fight for.

Take for instance the State of South Carolina and H.3101 (still sitting in their Senate, but has passed 28-16).
H.3101 is the South Carolina Freedom of Healthcare Protection Act … And essentially disregards parts of the ACA that it views as Unconstitutional.

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF HEALTH CARE PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38 SO AS TO RENDER NULL AND VOID CERTAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TAKING CONTROL OVER THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND MANDATING THAT INDIVIDUALS PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER THREAT OF PENALTY; TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM ENFORCING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS; AND TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATING THIS ARTICLE.

2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online

Only when State Legislatures and Governors step up and start taking responsibility for the protection of their own rights ... And the rights of their citizens ... Will there ever be a difference.

Governor Nikki Haley wants to help the people in her state.
The Governor wants to be in South Carolina and take care of South Carolina's business ... Doesn't so much care about approval from Washington or getting elected on the national scene.

If the states aren't willing to support the efforts of the people they represent ... Then each citizen within that state is obligated to replace their own representatives with someone who will do the job that needs to be done.

We have far more influence within our own state governments and our communities than we do on the national level.
You have a greater chance of shaking the tree in your own backyard than trying to chop one down in Washington ... Get together with your neighbors and you can start making short work of that tree.

Why should we as individuals have to worry about fighting the Federal Government over States Rights ... If the States won't stand up for themselves to start with?

.

That too happened back the TRR and FDR era. Once the federal government turned the Constitution on its head, it was able to start taking the power from the states and manipulating the money. But because it was so gradual, it was the proverbial frog lulled into complacency in the pot until it was finally boiled alive.

Now the states are in a tough spot. They HAVE to have federal money to fulfill their obligations and if they openly defy the federal government, the federal government now has the power to punish them in unpleasant ways.

It is the same way with the people. Most of us are conservatives at heart. Most of us long for a return to small, effective, efficient government and the liberties that we have lost, one by one, over time. But 50% or more of us now depend in some way on government benefits. And even if those benefits are small, it takes huge cajones to gather the gumption to voluntarily give them up in favor of a return to constitutional government. The federal government has bribed and blugeoned and manipulated and lied its way into total control over us. And those in government are not about to give up their power, prestige, influence, and rapidly expanding personal fortunes in order to do anything about it.

 

[BlackSand]

2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online

That too happened back the TRR and FDR era. Once the federal government turned the Constitution on its head, it was able to start taking the power from the states and manipulating the money. But because it was so gradual, it was the proverbial frog lulled into complacency in the pot until it was finally boiled alive.

Now the states are in a tough spot. They HAVE to have federal money to fulfill their obligations and if they openly defy the federal government, the federal government now has the power to punish them in unpleasant ways.

It is the same way with the people. Most of us are conservatives at heart. Most of us long for a return to small, effective, efficient government and the liberties that we have lost, one by one, over time. But 50% or more of us now depend in some way on government benefits. And even if those benefits are small, it takes huge cajones to gather the gumption to voluntarily give them up in favor of a return to constitutional government. The federal government has bribed and blugeoned and manipulated and lied its way into total control over us. And those in government are not about to give up their power, prestige, influence, and rapidly expanding personal fortunes in order to do anything about it.

I think that is where the Bill in South Carolina is a little different in application.
It would be the same old-same old with the exception that it doesn't stop at the simple refusal of government funding.

It simply states that the State Exchanges are what they would consider to be not only unconstitutional but illegal.

Note that it also establishes the ability to prosecute individuals and entities that attempt to enforce what they see as " Unconstitutional Legislation" passed by the US Congress.
They are not saying that they will opt out of the system ... But stating that the legislation and State Run Exchange is illegal and open to prosecution under the law.

As a State ... South Carolina is not telling the Federal Government that they won't play ball ... They are telling the Federal Government that they will take them to court or throw their agents in jail if they try to enforce the Unconstitutional Legislation.
The Legislation is what limits funding should a state choose not to comply ... And to limit funding would be attempts to enforce the Legislation.

Could be interesting ...

.

 

[Listening]

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.

O.K.

O.K.

Let's take the term Republican out of it. Let's just say people who believe in small government. Not a conservative.

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

 

[Foxfyre]

O.K.

O.K.

Let's take the term Republican out of it. Let's just say people who believe in small government. Not a conservative.

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.

 

[Listening]

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.

So, let me ask you.

Do your local republicans (or so called republicans) demand free stuff too ?

How organized are the conservatives in your area ?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.

So, let me ask you.

Do your local republicans (or so called republicans) demand free stuff too ?

How organized are the conservatives in your area ?

I think Republicans are less likely to demand free stuff, but Republicans alas are humans with feet of clay and it is as difficult for them to resist taking free stuff they are given as it is anybody else. And once you are receiving a government benefit, it is asking a lot of most people to expect them to insist that the government take away the benefit.

The government, media, and leftist talking heads have been sufficiently successful in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party movement which was, at least for awhile, our best shot at turning all that around. And now with 50% of the population being beneficiary in some way on government generosity, I think we may have lost a brief window of opportunity that we had.

This has nothing to do with Republicans or partisanship. This has everything to do with federal government manipulation of the vote and its insatiable appetite for more power, prestige, influence, and ability of those in government to massively increase their personal wealth. That takes precedence over everything else.

 

[Steven_R]

Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.

Which begs the question how do we get people to vote to end their free ride? It isn't just turning off the DC money tap, but the state capitals, county commissions, and city hall is buying votes via pork and programs the same way DC does it. How do we get enough people to say "no" to "free" money?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.

I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.

Which begs the question how do we get people to vote to end their free ride? It isn't just turning off the DC money tap, but the state capitals, county commissions, and city hall is buying votes via pork and programs the same way DC does it. How do we get enough people to say "no" to "free" money?

The only way out I see now is a Constitutional Amendment that requires the Federal government to slowly and carefully transfer all entitlements to the states where they belonged in the first place and that denies those in the White House, Congress, or any government agency from dispensing ANY benefit or imposing any requirement to anybody that isn't dispensed to everybody regardless of socioeconomic status or political afflialtion without exception, including themselves.

 

[SayMyName]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

Good points. I have been a member of the GOP for over 30 years. The last few years made me scratch my head in absolute wonder. Now, I simply realize many of us have to no longer go along to get along. It is time to say what was wrong and demand better, and not just blame the Democrats. Goodness, I might not agree with a lot about the Democrats and their policies, but I would rather hang with them for awhile rather than those that called me their own and stabbed us all in the back for the 8 years of the Bush presidency. The waste, the utter chaos he left not only our party, but the nation. Such lost opportunity. More than anything else, if there is a Dante's Inferno, losing opportunity to do good has to be one of the lowest pits. With the money we spent on those concocted wars and the bailout of the banks, the potential to totally remake this country would have been enormous.

I hope he is enjoying himself hiding down there in Crawford.

 

[hunarcy]

In most of what I've read regarding the 10th amendment, I rarely see anyone try to utilize the 10th amendment as a basis for nullification. I do know that such sentiments exist, but they seem to be in the minority and rare.

So, I'll just clarify by saying that is not what I meant in bringing this up.

Even if it were the majority of writings, nullification is an all or nothing strategy.

A true 10th amendment strategy would be much more subtle.

What is TRULY amazing to me is that these people who clutch their petticoats and bemoan nullification, are the same who are cheering and hugging over the medical marijuana/Colorado recreational marijuana laws which essentially nullifies the federal government's ban on marijuana.

It is to laugh!

 

[Foxfyre]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

Good points. I have been a member of the GOP for over 30 years. The last few years made me scratch my head in absolute wonder. Now, I simply realize many of us have to no longer go along to get along. It is time to say what was wrong and demand better, and not just blame the Democrats. Goodness, I might not agree with a lot about the Democrats and their policies, but I would rather hang with them for awhile rather than those that called me their own and stabbed us all in the back for the 8 years of the Bush presidency. The waste, the utter chaos he left not only our party, but the nation. Such lost opportunity. More than anything else, if there is a Dante's Inferno, losing opportunity to do good has to be one of the lowest pits. With the money we spent on those concocted wars and the bailout of the banks, the potential to totally remake this country would have been enormous.

I hope he is enjoying himself hiding down there in Crawford.

But how much do the admiinistrators of Dante's Inferno rub their hands in glee and anticipation when those who condemn the sins of some then hang with those who do even worse sins? ? Hang with those Who have had the opportunity to do good for far more years than wthe Bush Administration and instead have not done good but have accomplished, intentionally or unintentionally, much evil? Hang with those who not only consistently ignore and trample on the 10th Amendment, but would do away with it in a heartbeat given the opportunity?

Our resentment and impulse to lash out and punish those who disappoint us, or who we have been taught to hate, creates some very strange and insidious bed fellows at times.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Bumping this up again.

I read through it and liked it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This was basically settled before your court case, Mr. Jones.

By the Civil War.

No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.

And herein lies one of the true misunderstandings in this discussion.

The supremacy clause was in place prior to the Civil War.

In theory, the federal government was only to regulate/legilslate in particular areas. However, they've spilled way over their original scope.

The fact is that if they are allowed to do so, the laws they make are "supreme".

Nullification is not the answer. It is anarchy.

However, that does not mean the wording of the 10th is meaningless....it's pretty much dormant.

But it still exists and the concept is still real.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Oh, and thanks for pointing out that case law is the primary basis for considerations.

Keeping in mind that nothing is ever totally settled. Meaning, of course, that even if the framers has some idea that the 10th amendment wasn't to be as it reads....it could still be made to mean as much if the right people were in power.

Have a good day.

Oh how the tables have turned.

I give you Dobbs.

 

[Pellinore]

The Tenth Amendment is fine, and it is still out there. I have a theory that many of the concepts it guarantees are so accepted by now, and have been baked in for longer than any of us have been alive, that it is easy to overlook and not see its effects.

The Tenth Amendment is the reason that states determine their own voting laws; it is a power not explicitly granted to the federal government, and therefore retained by the states. It is the reason the President isn't the boss of every Governor, and why the FBI (et. al.) only have jurisdiction over crimes that cross state borders. Also, if you remember three years ago, the President couldn't mandate a nationwide mask order even in a nationwide pandemic, because issues of public health are retained by the states.

Every law has to pass the Tenth Amendment test before it is even proposed. We don't talk it every day, but it is still there as a bedrock principle.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Until Wickard v. Filburn is overturned the 10th Amendment is dead.