The 10th Amendment

[Listening]

In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat". As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.

But. . .kudos to him for a great post.

And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.

The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things. Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role. And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.

Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers. But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition. The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.

And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force. But its roots are entirely constitutional.

It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs. In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.

Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.

You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.

I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.

Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.

I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.

But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.

The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.

Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.

I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form. I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws. I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.

It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit. If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).

That way you have an account. You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out. You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options). But you will have a minimum.

We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.

Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.

You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer. You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you. No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.

If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.

When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.

Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).

*********************

This might need a different thread.

I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.

Right now, it is an mess. It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date? Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured? And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept? There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.

 

[Listening]

Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date? Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured? And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept? There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.

Point by point:

To really discuss this, I should start a new thread.

I think S.S. is really unconstitutional. There is no place for the federal government in this program. The program was supposed to be an insurance program...it has turned into a retirment program and many are scamming it.

I have lost faith in the willingness of people to save. I believe it has to be mandated.

The details of where and how...need to be worked out.

But, I believe we need something and I only believe it should be via the amendment process.

If I adhere to the 10th (like I claim to), this is not a legal program (on paper...I realize we've been doing it for almost a century now).

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date? Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured? And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept? There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.

Point by point:

To really discuss this, I should start a new thread.

I think S.S. is really unconstitutional. There is no place for the federal government in this program. The program was supposed to be an insurance program...it has turned into a retirment program and many are scamming it.

I have lost faith in the willingness of people to save. I believe it has to be mandated.

The details of where and how...need to be worked out.

But, I believe we need something and I only believe it should be via the amendment process.

If I adhere to the 10th (like I claim to), this is not a legal program (on paper...I realize we've been doing it for almost a century now).

I am opposed to mandates that violate our freedom to do with our resources whatever we wish to do with them short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. We cannot be a free people without freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones. We cannot be a free people unless we are allowed the consequences of bad choices we make.

Had the federal government stayed out of it, people would not depend on social security to support them in their old age but would prepare for that as most responsible people once did. We generally make better choices when there is nobody to bail us out if we we make bad ones. A government that rewards failure and punishes success encourages failure.

Social security was not intended as an insurance program. It was intended to supplement the pensions of the aged who might otherwise be impoverished. Evenso, it violated every concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the state level, such a concept is permissable. Not at the federal level. And that is what makes it a 10th Amendment issue.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.



You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.



I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.



Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.

I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.



But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.



The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.

Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.



I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form. I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws. I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.



It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit. If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).



That way you have an account. You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out. You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options). But you will have a minimum.



We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.



Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.



You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer. You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you. No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.



If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.



When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.



Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).



*********************



This might need a different thread.



I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.



Right now, it is an mess. It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.

Placing SS under banking laws would be terrible! Ever since the repeal of Steagall Glass banks have been throwing money around like sugar in coffee. They would only have to hold ten percent on hand and then invest the rest and lose the losses on the open market. Never give bankers that free money!

 

[Listening]

I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.



But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.



The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.

Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.



I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form. I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws. I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.



It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit. If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).



That way you have an account. You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out. You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options). But you will have a minimum.



We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.



Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.



You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer. You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you. No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.



If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.



When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.



Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).



*********************



This might need a different thread.



I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.



Right now, it is an mess. It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.

Placing SS under banking laws would be terrible! Ever since the repeal of Steagall Glass banks have been throwing money around like sugar in coffee. They would only have to hold ten percent on hand and then invest the rest and lose the losses on the open market. Never give bankers that free money!

Shawn,

I've derailed my own thread...so I'll respond and let's get back to the 10th.

I would never give the 1st tier to the banks (which would almost all of it). I said it should follow banking laws which means there has to be some idea of how anyone seeking to borrow it is going to pay it back. Also, you can't take it all. There has to be some reserve.

The idea was to make government more responsible with it.

Now, back to the 10th.

 

[Listening]

Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date? Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured? And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept? There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.

Point by point:

To really discuss this, I should start a new thread.

I think S.S. is really unconstitutional. There is no place for the federal government in this program. The program was supposed to be an insurance program...it has turned into a retirment program and many are scamming it.

I have lost faith in the willingness of people to save. I believe it has to be mandated.

The details of where and how...need to be worked out.

But, I believe we need something and I only believe it should be via the amendment process.

If I adhere to the 10th (like I claim to), this is not a legal program (on paper...I realize we've been doing it for almost a century now).

I am opposed to mandates that violate our freedom to do with our resources whatever we wish to do with them short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. We cannot be a free people without freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones. We cannot be a free people unless we are allowed the consequences of bad choices we make.

Taking this as a general statement, I would agree.

Allowing people to face the consequences of bad decisions is something we are not good at. This very topic is at the very heart of most any conversation between the left and the right. The right talks about accountability (but many in the GOP are unwilling to make the hard choices that force people to face up to their own stupdity. The left is always willing to take our money and give them a handout.

Just so you know, I am not defending Social Security, especially as it now exists. Back in the day, the actuaries built it around a specific survival rate. Then politicians got involved and all of sudden...if a man died...it was due his widow even though they were not built into the equation. But the number of workers was still increasing so it was O.K. Politicians could give away the bank (the increases in 1966 were terribly overdone...what's worse they went to people with money...the real poor got next to nothing).

But, you now have Elizabeth Warren saying we need to put more into it to cover all these elderly who saved nothing...and now might have to live in squalor. I'm with you, but whose going to take on the elderly ?

Had the federal government stayed out of it, people would not depend on social security to support them in their old age but would prepare for that as most responsible people once did. We generally make better choices when there is nobody to bail us out if we we make bad ones. A government that rewards failure and punishes success encourages failure.

To be fair, the industrial revolution marginalized the elderly. They used to fade away, but were now simply being cut off. Unemployment among them was much higher during the depression.

The effort to help them out should have been sunset after a while. But the libs just could not let it go.

And here is where FDR was a traitor. He tried to pack the courts and then got to appoint a bunch of asskissers who allowed all kinds of unconstitutional (as per the previous court) crap to go through.

Social security was not intended as an insurance program. It was intended to supplement the pensions of the aged who might otherwise be impoverished. Evenso, it violated every concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the state level, such a concept is permissable. Not at the federal level. And that is what makes it a 10th Amendment issue.

I believe Title II is a more an insurance program. Not sure if it was part of the original bill. It has been constantly expanded with time.

And I agree...that is why I brought it up as needing an amendment. However, it is never going to get repealed. The GOP has allowed it to become to much a part of our fabric.

Taking this back to the 10th, in general, the opportunity to defeat it was lost long ago. My proposiition in the OP is to slowly start getting rid of the easy stuff and develop a momentum for tackling the hard stuff. I'd like to see things like the department of education reduced to nothing...but only after it is beefed up at the state level. I think the GOP can take the lead in these things and show how government was supposed to work. But they need a plan.

This latest move by Paul Ryan is going to piss a lot of people off...so what. It's time the GOP wake up to the fact that you can't reverse course overnight. We've been far to complicit for far to long. We won't turn this thing on a dime.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's an interesting point. People bitch about politics, but they mostly mean what's happening in DC. There are any number of other political arenas close by. City council meetings, planning commission meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, utility commission meetings, state legislature events and so on and so forth. Why are we so apathetic about those political levels but so passionately divided about what goes on in DC?

And that is the point.

I once did an experiment where I went to ten City Council meetings in a row. In two of them, there was no one else (but me). In five of them, there were developers. In three cases there were complaints (rezoning to allow a dance school into an industrial area....houses that were flooding.....and I can't remember the third.

In one meeting, one of the Councilmen griped that there were no citizens there and they needed to do more to get some "fresh ideas" coming to them...they didn't want to dreams stuff up themselves.

This city is probably more moderate than anything. But there are a fair number of conservatives around. Where are they. Our sales tax is one of the highest in the county.
Why ? Doesn't anyone care ?

I've been to open forums with my state legislators. I know them by name and they know me...I've worked for them. They might represent 30,000 people.....and five show up. And there are some pretty good discussions. FIVE freaking constituents !!!!

Where are the conservatives ? They are to busy bitching about abortion and they forget everything else.

I was at a meeting where the House Speaker got up and said, that if "conservatives were not going to run for school board....don't come to the capital and expect us to fix the education mess". Where conservatives have run for the board, they've won (but they get pretty bloody doing it....the NEA does not mind hitting below the belt....often)....and yet we still can't get people to run in other districts.

If the conservatives of this world are about local government...why are they not running or helping more ?

That is the idea behind a 10th amendment strategy.

And herein lies the true problem. An apathetic voting populous. There is the real resistance to returning the tenth amendment to actually meaning something. The average person is more than willing to listen to the corrupt parties that they have created to feed them their information and those parties are not interested in diluting the power they have pooled. As you pointed out, no one really studies the founding documents to the point that most people have not even bothered to read the constitution. How can those voters possibly use their vote to uphold the constitution when they don’t understand anything it states?

Now, the question is how to we get the GOP to start subtley putting this into play ?

We need to move in this direction. But a grandios red-meat strewn approach does not work. We need to quietly keep grabbing local governments and learning how to ignore the feds. And when we can get the GOP in at the federal level, they need to start repealing laws (or get their balls cut off).

How do we start this ? Should we ?

And here we have another problem (a symptom actually of apathetic voters). The GOP is not interested in returning power to state governments. Sure, they do a good talk and some even try when they are in STATE positions but to be quite frank, the GOP is just as supportive for centralized and all powerful government as the Dems are. If you truly want to make a difference then that is the first step that we all need to take – kick the GOP to the curb. They may change (and then we can go back) or someone else may take their place (not for the first time) but something needs to drastically change and that ONLY comes with a grate loss of power. Then those that want that power take a hard look at what they need to do in order to get it back. Unfortunately, I don’t think the voting populous is willing to invest the time and effort and they won’t until things get bad. And I mean really bad. When people actually start to starve then we will see change but at that point we will be too far gone for simple votes and an overthrow might be the only answer. That is a LONG way off btw. I don’t see such occurring in my lifetime tbh.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 is what you get when you interpret the words of the constitution to mean anything that you want them to mean. The things that the general welfare clause has been used to justify give the government such broad powers that there really is no reason whatsoever for the constitution outside of the 10 amendments (and those are hanging on by a string). Arguments based entirely on ambiguity cannot be clear and they never will.

We can't govern by spirit. Law is about words. Specific, precise, well considered words.

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law, including the Constitution, as you want to. As little kids say all of the time, it's a free country.

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success, not perfection, of America and her laws.

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might. New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real, current problems.
I choose to defend America. Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives, not some mythical Nirvana.

And a loyalty to pragmatism.

I find the bold statement laughable considering that almost all your arguments are based on the EXACT opposite. The words in the tenth are very precise and have simple meaning yet the amendment is entirely ignored. General welfare is given such a broad definition that it can mean virtually anything. Interstate commerce is construed to mean that the government can control the amount of wheat that you grow on your property.


NONE of that is precise or well considered. It is the exact opposite. Extremely vague and used to fit whatever particular meaning that the government wants it to mean at the moment. The left purposefully avoids using precise meanings to anything and constantly accuses the right of being to precise with the constitution. It even goes so far as to call the constitution a ‘living document’ with the express intent of changing the way that you use those words.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point by point:

To really discuss this, I should start a new thread.

I think S.S. is really unconstitutional. There is no place for the federal government in this program. The program was supposed to be an insurance program...it has turned into a retirment program and many are scamming it.

I have lost faith in the willingness of people to save. I believe it has to be mandated.

The details of where and how...need to be worked out.

But, I believe we need something and I only believe it should be via the amendment process.

If I adhere to the 10th (like I claim to), this is not a legal program (on paper...I realize we've been doing it for almost a century now).

Taking this as a general statement, I would agree.

Allowing people to face the consequences of bad decisions is something we are not good at. This very topic is at the very heart of most any conversation between the left and the right. The right talks about accountability (but many in the GOP are unwilling to make the hard choices that force people to face up to their own stupdity. The left is always willing to take our money and give them a handout.

Just so you know, I am not defending Social Security, especially as it now exists. Back in the day, the actuaries built it around a specific survival rate. Then politicians got involved and all of sudden...if a man died...it was due his widow even though they were not built into the equation. But the number of workers was still increasing so it was O.K. Politicians could give away the bank (the increases in 1966 were terribly overdone...what's worse they went to people with money...the real poor got next to nothing).

But, you now have Elizabeth Warren saying we need to put more into it to cover all these elderly who saved nothing...and now might have to live in squalor. I'm with you, but whose going to take on the elderly ?



To be fair, the industrial revolution marginalized the elderly. They used to fade away, but were now simply being cut off. Unemployment among them was much higher during the depression.

The effort to help them out should have been sunset after a while. But the libs just could not let it go.

And here is where FDR was a traitor. He tried to pack the courts and then got to appoint a bunch of asskissers who allowed all kinds of unconstitutional (as per the previous court) crap to go through.

Social security was not intended as an insurance program. It was intended to supplement the pensions of the aged who might otherwise be impoverished. Evenso, it violated every concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the state level, such a concept is permissable. Not at the federal level. And that is what makes it a 10th Amendment issue.

I believe Title II is a more an insurance program. Not sure if it was part of the original bill. It has been constantly expanded with time.

And I agree...that is why I brought it up as needing an amendment. However, it is never going to get repealed. The GOP has allowed it to become to much a part of our fabric.

Taking this back to the 10th, in general, the opportunity to defeat it was lost long ago. My proposiition in the OP is to slowly start getting rid of the easy stuff and develop a momentum for tackling the hard stuff. I'd like to see things like the department of education reduced to nothing...but only after it is beefed up at the state level. I think the GOP can take the lead in these things and show how government was supposed to work. But they need a plan.

This latest move by Paul Ryan is going to piss a lot of people off...so what. It's time the GOP wake up to the fact that you can't reverse course overnight. We've been far to complicit for far to long. We won't turn this thing on a dime.

Who is going to take on the elderly? I would hope it would be the state and the local community and the families and the elderly themselves as it was in the time before government decided it could be mother, sugar daddy, and Santa Claus to all of society. If the federal government is busted back to its Constitutional roots, then it is up to we the people who will have the responsibility for forming whatever sort of society we wish to have. It isn't that the government motives were wrong to begin with, but giving politicians that much power and the systemic inefficiencies built into big government, it invariably wound up hurting more people than are actually helped.

A free people should always evaluate community efforts on results and what works, and not on how high minded the rhetoric or program titles might be. The Founders, to a man, understood how corrupting is the power to take from one citizen for the benefit of another. Which is why, to a man, they were agreed that all forms of charity would be for the state, local communities, and individuals to dispense, and never the federal government. Thus the 10th Amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

More talking points.

Already showed where states are hemming in Roe.

Now what can't I do ?

No you really haven’t, at least in context with the tenth amendment. The states are pushing the boundaries and finding their limits BUT the ultimate authority STILL lies with the federal government and they are not changing that reality. It is the opposite. They are trying to find the current boundary set by the authority that they have ceded to.

Realize as well that Roe is NOT a federal government authority issue as it is not a federal law. That is a court power issue and that is crystal clear – the courts have the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. I don’t see a way around that nor do I think that there should be one. IF you think that the 10th also applies to the SCOTUS (in that the states have the power to determine a SCOTUS ruling does not apply) then there might be something there but you have not made that contention as far as I know. I also don’t think such a concept is workable because there would be no authority whatsoever in the constitution and the idea of a federal government would be moot then. Personally, I don’t think this helps the states in relation to the tenth amendment at all and is rather a piss poor area to challenge it on anyway. If there ever was a way to ensure that the tenth amendment stays extinct it would be to start its revival surrounding abortion. You might as well try reviving it with slavery. (not too equate those issues – just a statement as to how fool heartedly I think the idea is)



As a side note on the AF portion of the discussion. I think that you have it all wrong. The constitution does specify an army and if you look at AF history it was originally part of the army. It started as the army air core. Just because the federal government has decided that it needs a separate chain does not mean that it is unconstitutional because we don’t call it army. The entirety of the armed forces fall under the DoD and what they are called is irrelevant. We could call them ALL Army or Navy if we so choose but that would be rather silly. The AF is still funded with the army as the constitution calls for and treated essentially as if it were. I don’t think there really is any argument whatsoever that it is unconstitutional because that is nothing more than parsing words without meaning.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't agree with this entirely....

I'll give you one example I've (admittedly) not studied very well. So I'll let you tell me if I am off base.

The FDR bastard (how's that for poisoning the well ?) SCOTUS somehow managed to come up with the idea of incorporation of the bill of rights. This is a heinous doctrine in my estimation.

However, it serves the purposes of one group that hides under it's skirt and has for a long time.

I am talking the 2nd amendment. You can't be for states soveriegnty, claim that the constitution only limits the federal government and then ask the fed to do your bidding when it comes to gun laws.

It is total hypocricy from my POV. Am I wrong ?

Yes, I think that you are wrong. Perhaps this should have been accomplished by an amendment declaring that all rights are protected from the state as well as the federal government but to be honest, I think that viewing this any other way smacks the very concept that this nation was founded upon: freedom and natural rights. You cannot claim in one breath that rights are bestowed upon man by God, creator or nature as the founders did and then in the very same breath decide that those same rights are somehow no longer intrinsic to our being because the government that is taking them is smaller. It is not just gun rights that this matters. Your right to religion should not be determined by the state that you live in. Your right to free speech. Personal property rights. You’re right to redress government or have a trial. The press. ALL rights that are inherent and require protection from an overbearing federal government require the EXACT same protection from an overbearing state government. This is painfully obvious to me. I believe in freedom first and foremost and freedom is utterly meaningless if the state can arbitrarily decide at any moment to take those freedoms away. Why bother with rights at all then if the state has carte blanche authority to violate them.

This in one of the MAJOR areas where the founders royally fucked up – they did not apply the protections in the BoR to the states. Sure, we seen an almost immediate movement away from those violations like state religions after the ratification but there never should have been any question: natural rights protected from the state should be protected from ALL levels of the state – not just the central federal one and it DID take the court opinion a hundred years later to squash the lot of ‘em. Hell, they still are not totally squashed as the second really has not been incorporated. The very concept is completely hypocritical if that is not true. I abhor tyranny of my locality just as much as tyranny of the federal government. What the hell is the difference?

 

[FA_Q2]

Taking this as a general statement, I would agree.

Allowing people to face the consequences of bad decisions is something we are not good at. This very topic is at the very heart of most any conversation between the left and the right. The right talks about accountability (but many in the GOP are unwilling to make the hard choices that force people to face up to their own stupdity. The left is always willing to take our money and give them a handout.

Just so you know, I am not defending Social Security, especially as it now exists. Back in the day, the actuaries built it around a specific survival rate. Then politicians got involved and all of sudden...if a man died...it was due his widow even though they were not built into the equation. But the number of workers was still increasing so it was O.K. Politicians could give away the bank (the increases in 1966 were terribly overdone...what's worse they went to people with money...the real poor got next to nothing).

But, you now have Elizabeth Warren saying we need to put more into it to cover all these elderly who saved nothing...and now might have to live in squalor. I'm with you, but whose going to take on the elderly ?



To be fair, the industrial revolution marginalized the elderly. They used to fade away, but were now simply being cut off. Unemployment among them was much higher during the depression.

The effort to help them out should have been sunset after a while. But the libs just could not let it go.

And here is where FDR was a traitor. He tried to pack the courts and then got to appoint a bunch of asskissers who allowed all kinds of unconstitutional (as per the previous court) crap to go through.



I believe Title II is a more an insurance program. Not sure if it was part of the original bill. It has been constantly expanded with time.

And I agree...that is why I brought it up as needing an amendment. However, it is never going to get repealed. The GOP has allowed it to become to much a part of our fabric.

Taking this back to the 10th, in general, the opportunity to defeat it was lost long ago. My proposiition in the OP is to slowly start getting rid of the easy stuff and develop a momentum for tackling the hard stuff. I'd like to see things like the department of education reduced to nothing...but only after it is beefed up at the state level. I think the GOP can take the lead in these things and show how government was supposed to work. But they need a plan.

This latest move by Paul Ryan is going to piss a lot of people off...so what. It's time the GOP wake up to the fact that you can't reverse course overnight. We've been far to complicit for far to long. We won't turn this thing on a dime.

Who is going to take on the elderly? I would hope it would be the state and the local community and the families and the elderly themselves as it was in the time before government decided it could be mother, sugar daddy, and Santa Claus to all of society. If the federal government is busted back to its Constitutional roots, then it is up to we the people who will have the responsibility for forming whatever sort of society we wish to have. It isn't that the government motives were wrong to begin with, but giving politicians that much power and the systemic inefficiencies built into big government, it invariably wound up hurting more people than are actually helped.

A free people should always evaluate community efforts on results and what works, and not on how high minded the rhetoric or program titles might be. The Founders, to a man, understood how corrupting is the power to take from one citizen for the benefit of another. Which is why, to a man, they were agreed that all forms of charity would be for the state, local communities, and individuals to dispense, and never the federal government. Thus the 10th Amendment.

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

 

[Listening]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

I am going to address two you posts in a short time just to keep the conversation going. I am somewhat pressed. And pardon the ADD nature of the writing.

To the point of block grants. Agreed. It sucks. I've somewhat convinced myself that it needs to happen at a very small level, but I don't think you can get it there. The fed uses that money to push the states around....see my example from the 70's where the fed was using money to push books parents didn't want into the school district where I lived.

Second. Voter apathy. Yes. But this is the issue with the way things are conducted now. Everything is with eyes on the federal government. I am associated with about six different "republican" groups here in town. Most of them are red-meat eaters. But they still only focus on the federal stuff. I was a at a meeting when the leader of the house (for our state) stood up and said (as best I can) "If you won't run for school boards...don't come to us to solve your problems."

In an earlier post, I asked if anyone had been to a city council meeting in the last five years. I'll repeat that question. I'll find the post and bring it forward. To me this is where the true republicans should start.

When bring this up in meetings, people look at me blankly. They've completely forgotten about that fact that we have very local governments. What's worse is that as we've lost our hometown newspapers, these governments now operated with little or now watching. Why does not the GOP set up to do this ? This is what we say we are.

Finally, I am going to eventually start another thread on Social Security. For now, I think we all agree it is not a good program and that it violates the spirit of the Constitution (and the left will say...Oh yeah, well if the SCOTUS says so......to which I say...if the SCOTUS says so one day does not mean they will say so years later....nothing is settled).

Thanks for the great posts. I enjoy these kinds of discussions.

L

 

[Listening]

I don't agree with this entirely....

I'll give you one example I've (admittedly) not studied very well. So I'll let you tell me if I am off base.

The FDR bastard (how's that for poisoning the well ?) SCOTUS somehow managed to come up with the idea of incorporation of the bill of rights. This is a heinous doctrine in my estimation.

However, it serves the purposes of one group that hides under it's skirt and has for a long time.

I am talking the 2nd amendment. You can't be for states soveriegnty, claim that the constitution only limits the federal government and then ask the fed to do your bidding when it comes to gun laws.

It is total hypocricy from my POV. Am I wrong ?

Yes, I think that you are wrong. Perhaps this should have been accomplished by an amendment declaring that all rights are protected from the state as well as the federal government but to be honest, I think that viewing this any other way smacks the very concept that this nation was founded upon: freedom and natural rights. You cannot claim in one breath that rights are bestowed upon man by God, creator or nature as the founders did and then in the very same breath decide that those same rights are somehow no longer intrinsic to our being because the government that is taking them is smaller. It is not just gun rights that this matters. Your right to religion should not be determined by the state that you live in. Your right to free speech. Personal property rights. You’re right to redress government or have a trial. The press. ALL rights that are inherent and require protection from an overbearing federal government require the EXACT same protection from an overbearing state government. This is painfully obvious to me. I believe in freedom first and foremost and freedom is utterly meaningless if the state can arbitrarily decide at any moment to take those freedoms away. Why bother with rights at all then if the state has carte blanche authority to violate them.

This in one of the MAJOR areas where the founders royally fucked up – they did not apply the protections in the BoR to the states. Sure, we seen an almost immediate movement away from those violations like state religions after the ratification but there never should have been any question: natural rights protected from the state should be protected from ALL levels of the state – not just the central federal one and it DID take the court opinion a hundred years later to squash the lot of ‘em. Hell, they still are not totally squashed as the second really has not been incorporated. The very concept is completely hypocritical if that is not true. I abhor tyranny of my locality just as much as tyranny of the federal government. What the hell is the difference?

O.K. But this is not an argument against anything that already exists. It is an assertion that things should have been different.

While I agree with your final statement, there is a point where the tyranny of the minority can come into play.

If the majority of people in a state (supermajority) want to stupidly give up gun rights...that is their choice. I am willing to allow that.

But, again this isn't an argument....just my opinion and what I would chose if it were up to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

out of time - will respond in a bit

 

[PMZ]

Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.

You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.

I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.

Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.

I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.

But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.

The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.

Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.

I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form. I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws. I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.

It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit. If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).

That way you have an account. You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out. You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options). But you will have a minimum.

We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.

Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.

You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer. You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you. No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.

If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.

When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.

Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).

*********************

This might need a different thread.

I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.

Right now, it is an mess. It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.

What problem would any of this solve?

 

[FA_Q2]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

I am going to address two you posts in a short time just to keep the conversation going. I am somewhat pressed. And pardon the ADD nature of the writing.

To the point of block grants. Agreed. It sucks. I've somewhat convinced myself that it needs to happen at a very small level, but I don't think you can get it there. The fed uses that money to push the states around....see my example from the 70's where the fed was using money to push books parents didn't want into the school district where I lived.

I would ask why you think that it needs to happen at any level? The individual state can tax and provide for the needs of its people. I can’t think of a single reason whatsoever to block grant anything at any time. The very idea is completely grounded in the concept of controlling the states. Unnecessary and very destructive. What the federal government takes for its duties should be ran by the federal government. If they are not running it then they should not be financing it.

Second. Voter apathy. Yes. But this is the issue with the way things are conducted now. Everything is with eyes on the federal government. I am associated with about six different "republican" groups here in town. Most of them are red-meat eaters. But they still only focus on the federal stuff. I was a at a meeting when the leader of the house (for our state) stood up and said (as best I can) "If you won't run for school boards...don't come to us to solve your problems."

In an earlier post, I asked if anyone had been to a city council meeting in the last five years. I'll repeat that question. I'll find the post and bring it forward. To me this is where the true republicans should start.

I agree that starting at the local level is a good place to begin but that is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. I was not talking about where we would need to start in order to regain states’ rights but rather that the real block is in the complete and utter disregard for government in voters. That apathy gets WORSE as you get closer to home (as you have pointed out) because there is little visibility (as you have also pointed out) and until that changes then starting is not the problem. There really is nowhere to start if there isn’t anyone paying attention.

The representative you pointed out is a smart man – if we are not taking over the local positions then it is awfully hard to blame the ones at the top but all of that comes right back to the failed responsibilities of the American voters. How we move forward I simply do not know. Like I stated, I think it is going to take real calamity – something that the American people do not understand at all.

When bring this up in meetings, people look at me blankly. They've completely forgotten about that fact that we have very local governments. What's worse is that as we've lost our hometown newspapers, these governments now operated with little or now watching. Why does not the GOP set up to do this ? This is what we say we are.

I already stated why – it is NOT what they are. I don’t care what they state – the actual actions of the GOP as a party reveal that the above sentiment is counter to what they stand for. Read that again:

STATES RIGHTS ARE COUNTER TO WHAT THE GOP STANDS FOR!

This is a tough position to deal with because it reveals the scary truth: there actually is no one that represents what we are talking about. That leaves 2 solutions – tear down the GOP and repair it at its core or replace it. I see neither being actively pursued at this moment. What really scares me is the idea that the social conservatives actually have more power than the fiscal ones. If that is the case (and it is a real possibility) then we simply are not going to see change until the nation burns down around us.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry but the proceeding does not make any sense to me. Am I missing something here or getting your message garbled?

O.K. But this is not an argument against anything that already exists. It is an assertion that things should have been different.

No, not really. It is an argument for what actually exists. We actually have incorporated rights. I did argue that the framers should have included this in the original constitution in plain words but my arguments are actually for what we have right now.

While I agree with your final statement, there is a point where the tyranny of the minority can come into play.

?
This is only in relation to rights that are explicitly in play in the constitution. That in no way reflects a ‘tyranny of the minority.’

If the majority of people in a state (supermajority) want to stupidly give up gun rights...that is their choice. I am willing to allow that.

But, again this isn't an argument....just my opinion and what I would chose if it were up to me.

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

 

[Listening]

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this. And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful. The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was trying to articulate.