The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?

I'm aware that he took the number of justices from five to the current nine.

It was nine at this time, and I believe it was always nine.

He wanted to put more robes on the bench (1 for every justice over some age).

It failed.

Everyone saw it for what it was....a blatent attempt to overpower our checks and balances.

Ultimately he wound up putting a bunch of libs on the bench that served his purposes.

So he did what the Bushes and Reagan did following him.

 

[PMZ]

The constitution clearly states what is federal business and what is not.

That was the intent of the document.

Just because the federal government wants to make it their business, does not make it their business.

The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.

Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.

Because it does.

 

[Listening]

The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.

Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.

Because it does.

Please explain to me how that works.

When the 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government to the powers enumerated in the constitution......

 

[PMZ]

Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.

Because it does.

Please explain to me how that works.

When the 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government to the powers enumerated in the constitution......

Because those powers are very broadly defined. That’s the mechanism through which the Federalists and states righters negotiated something that both could live with.

And that compromise has worked and created the country that we benefit from living in today.

 

[Listening]

Because it does.

Please explain to me how that works.

When the 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government to the powers enumerated in the constitution......

Because those powers are very broadly defined. That’s the mechanism through which the Federalists and states righters negotiated something that both could live with.

And that compromise has worked and created the country that we benefit from living in today.

How are they broadly defined in a document that specifically set's forth a very limited scope of activity by the federal government.

i.e.

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.

And yet the congress (and more importantly, the SCOTUS) has chosen to inject itself into the religious doings of communities.

Jefferson's infamous "wall" has no application beyond federal politics.

States supported state religions into the 1830's with no pushback from the federal government. The states chose to stop doing it...but the point was they did it and they could still be doing it. But if they tried today, the SCOTUS would overreach it's scope and get involved.

So, no they are not broadly defined.

 

[PMZ]

Please explain to me how that works.

When the 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government to the powers enumerated in the constitution......

Because those powers are very broadly defined. That’s the mechanism through which the Federalists and states righters negotiated something that both could live with.

And that compromise has worked and created the country that we benefit from living in today.

How are they broadly defined in a document that specifically set's forth a very limited scope of activity by the federal government.

i.e.

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.

And yet the congress (and more importantly, the SCOTUS) has chosen to inject itself into the religious doings of communities.

Jefferson's infamous "wall" has no application beyond federal politics.

States supported state religions into the 1830's with no pushback from the federal government. The states chose to stop doing it...but the point was they did it and they could still be doing it. But if they tried today, the SCOTUS would overreach it's scope and get involved.

So, no they are not broadly defined.

The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government. The rules for government, so to speak. It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within.

It specifies that the Federal government acts "over" states, but is not the bylaws for state governments.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

 

[PMZ]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

 

[PMZ]

Good Wikipedia article about the 10th Ammendment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[ShawnChris13]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

 

[Listening]

Because those powers are very broadly defined. That’s the mechanism through which the Federalists and states righters negotiated something that both could live with.

And that compromise has worked and created the country that we benefit from living in today.

How are they broadly defined in a document that specifically set's forth a very limited scope of activity by the federal government.

i.e.

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.

And yet the congress (and more importantly, the SCOTUS) has chosen to inject itself into the religious doings of communities.

Jefferson's infamous "wall" has no application beyond federal politics.

States supported state religions into the 1830's with no pushback from the federal government. The states chose to stop doing it...but the point was they did it and they could still be doing it. But if they tried today, the SCOTUS would overreach it's scope and get involved.

So, no they are not broadly defined.

The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government. The rules for government, so to speak. It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within.

It specifies that the Federal government acts "over" states, but is not the bylaws for state governments.

How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.

If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....

It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.

From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution

So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care. Where is that authority granted it ?

 

[Listening]

I'm aware that he took the number of justices from five to the current nine.

It was nine at this time, and I believe it was always nine.

He wanted to put more robes on the bench (1 for every justice over some age).

It failed.

Everyone saw it for what it was....a blatent attempt to overpower our checks and balances.

Ultimately he wound up putting a bunch of libs on the bench that served his purposes.

So he did what the Bushes and Reagan did following him.

We were talking Court Packing....FDR's unholy legacy.

If you want to debate what Bush and Reagan did, please feel free to start a thread. If you want to debate that the SCOTUS is now politicized....go ahead. Won't be much of a debate as I think most everyone accepts that now and it's a d**n shame.

The original line of reasoning was:

When FDR was trying his New Deal legislation it kept getting shot down.

Why ? The SCOTUS said it was not constitutional...not within the scope of the fed. In other words....the constitution does not give the fed cart blanche when it comes to many things...in fact if gives them cart nothing.

You said that was fringe thinking. It isn't...I was pointing it out.

And I showed you where FDR was so pissed at the checks on him that he tried to destroy that checks in a way that pissed off even his biggest supporters.

That's the line.

So the idea it is fringe does not hold water.

 

[Listening]

The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.

Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.

Because it does.

Where ?

Tell me specifically where it does this.

I can say that the 10th amendement specifically forbids the federal government from entering into our health care. It's clearly in the wording.

To deny that is to deny the 10th amendment.

 

[Listening]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

What part of this is not true ?

Please provide specifics. These fishing trips are getting boring.

Your arguments are not at all clear.

 

[Listening]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

I would say that, unfortunately, that is somewhat the case. However, what it says in 1850 may not be what it says in 1950. And that is the sad thing about appointing politically bend justices to the bench. Obama's justices no more adhere to the constitution than Stalin did. The rule, as did the famous traitor Earl Warren, on the basis of "right" and "wrong". Their versions of whatever that is.....and they fail to see the confusion it creates.

 

[PMZ]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

 

[PMZ]

How are they broadly defined in a document that specifically set's forth a very limited scope of activity by the federal government.

i.e.

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.

And yet the congress (and more importantly, the SCOTUS) has chosen to inject itself into the religious doings of communities.

Jefferson's infamous "wall" has no application beyond federal politics.

States supported state religions into the 1830's with no pushback from the federal government. The states chose to stop doing it...but the point was they did it and they could still be doing it. But if they tried today, the SCOTUS would overreach it's scope and get involved.

So, no they are not broadly defined.

The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government. The rules for government, so to speak. It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within.

It specifies that the Federal government acts "over" states, but is not the bylaws for state governments.

How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.

If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....

It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.

From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution

So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care. Where is that authority granted it ?

Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also?

You asked than answered your question.

" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution"

Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.

ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com. And subsidies.

Nothing new.

 

[PMZ]

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

What part of this is not true ?

Please provide specifics. These fishing trips are getting boring.

Your arguments are not at all clear.

That your opinion on Constitutional interpretation has any relevance.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Simply not true if we follow the Constitution. As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended.

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will, but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.

 

[PMZ]

Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.

Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining.

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it. If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.

Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.

Laws come first. Those that are effectively challenged get reviewed by Federal Courts. They rule on the challenges and declare the contested point in the existing law Constitutional or not. If not, it can't be enforced by the courts.

If laws keep changing because of interpretations, it's because they're being guided towards the Constitution, not away from it.