The Abandoned Child: The 10th Amendment

Armed? Against tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets?

Count on your fingers. Consider Vietnam and ME. Insurgencies/belligerent powers are not to be trifled with.

And again, consider the likelihood that in this time much of the rank and file would bolt.
Vietnam had china's backing. We would have.... toys.

Oh please. In 1776 one third of colonists favored rebellion, one third favored Britain, one third didn't give a rat's ass for either. With some late assistance from France, the former defeated the greatest military force of the time. And you are still assuming no rank-and-file would bolt and bring their "toys" with them.

All this is academic, of course. The ballot box is still the battlefield here, a circumstance we'd best maintain.
In 1776 armies comprised people with single shot rifles, pretty much the same stuff the people used to hunt game. In 2015 armies comprise machine guns, TANKS, BOMBERS, FIGHTER JETS, RPGs, chemical weapons of mass destruction, pain machines that literally cook the enemy with microwaves, ... and the people have single shot repeating rifles.

The point is that smaller forces have often throughout history defeated the larger and better equipped ones, and it is unlikely American forces would be willing to decimate the country against its own people, as well as weakening itself and leaving the nation open to foreign invasion simply to satisfy the whims of erroneous federal political direction.

We have an insurmountable difference of opinion on this as well, and this has strayed a bit from the subject of the thread.

Fin.
Neither point is insurmountable. I'm just playing the role of pragmatist.

There are ways to fix this mess.
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself. Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

First and foremost the 10th amendment requires consistent champions.

It is not so much the efforts of the left to subvert it as it has been negligence on the part of conservatives.
 
Note how there are two ways to change earlier amendments through further amendments, the first way is to provide clarifications and further amendments

A clarification cannot undo the original intent.

Now the constitution is upside down with the states boxed in by the feds.

In that we agree.

The feds can take all of the income out of a state

At the risk of insurrection, I suppose.

The states can do nothing about it.

That is a silly statement.
A clarification can completely neuter the original intent. See 17th amendment with the states no longer having a voice at all in DC. See 16th amendment with the feds being able to take the income away from a state and send it to other states. Together with the 14th, the original intent of the entire Constitution is now completely upside down, with the growth and power of the Federal Government to continue completely unabated. Look at these h1b visas.. ROFL they are bringing in cheap labor to replace professional American STEM workers and the people and states have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY WHATSOEVER ABOUT IT.

For example, Obamacare... sign up and receive the rewards that your tax payer's are forced to fun anyway or let the citizens of your state get completely screwed over by being forced to fund health care for other states with their income.

Insurrection? Have you not noticed every federal agency arming itself to the teeth? Internment camps going up all around the country? Tens of millions of "coffins" being prepped? The feds are insuring that any insurrection would be easily quelled.

Not silly, Fed law is supreme in all matters, whether the laws are reasonable, constitutional, or not... see fed success at stopping Arizonans from protecting themselves. The Fed going so far at to join a law suit with mexico against Arizonans.

You want to fix this country... you're gonna have to start in DC they own all the cards.

Why did you post a collection of lies to support your fantasy?
 
Note how there are two ways to change earlier amendments through further amendments, the first way is to provide clarifications and further amendments

A clarification cannot undo the original intent.

Now the constitution is upside down with the states boxed in by the feds.

In that we agree.

The feds can take all of the income out of a state

At the risk of insurrection, I suppose.

The states can do nothing about it.

That is a silly statement.
A clarification can completely neuter the original intent. See 17th amendment with the states no longer having a voice at all in DC. See 16th amendment with the feds being able to take the income away from a state and send it to other states. Together with the 14th, the original intent of the entire Constitution is now completely upside down, with the growth and power of the Federal Government to continue completely unabated. Look at these h1b visas.. ROFL they are bringing in cheap labor to replace professional American STEM workers and the people and states have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY WHATSOEVER ABOUT IT.

For example, Obamacare... sign up and receive the rewards that your tax payer's are forced to fun anyway or let the citizens of your state get completely screwed over by being forced to fund health care for other states with their income.

Insurrection? Have you not noticed every federal agency arming itself to the teeth? Internment camps going up all around the country? Tens of millions of "coffins" being prepped? The feds are insuring that any insurrection would be easily quelled.

Not silly, Fed law is supreme in all matters, whether the laws are reasonable, constitutional, or not... see fed success at stopping Arizonans from protecting themselves. The Fed going so far at to join a law suit with mexico against Arizonans.

You want to fix this country... you're gonna have to start in DC they own all the cards.

Ummmm ... okay, if you say so. We are obviously live in different dimensions.

As to quelling a major insurrection - something we definitely don't want here - the numbers don't favor the feds. The approximate total of all military personnel is about 2,500,000. The total number of armed citizens is over 100,000,000, perhaps well over, and how many with military training is anyone's guess. Now even assuming that all federal forces would feel free to fire upon Americans - an unlikely event considering the politics of our day - and also assuming that say oh, half of armed citizens stayed out of the fray, the numbers are overwhelming.

Even the Chinese have recognized that America could never be defeated by invasion. We have the largest civilian army in the world.

I do agree that DC is the place to start, but that does not render the states impotent.
Armed? Against tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets?
Historical examples? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
 
Rather than start a new thread, I thought we'd just pick this one up.

It is of interest to me.

I will say that I'd prefer good information and well founded arguments instead of name calling.
 
The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself.

The constitution created a specific government with spelled out duties.

However, it was up to the members of the republic to preserve that dynamica....something they have failed to do.

The amendment was not "abandoned" as much as it is simply ignored.

I would agree that the current federal government is now playing in areas it was not (originally) intended to be play in. And it got there through means that are not keeping with the letter or the spirit of the Constituiton.

A whole book could be written (and probably has) on how we got here.
 
Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?

What you propose is worse than what you are rebelling against. Mind you, I am conservative and believe in federalism.

But what you propose is anarchy. We are supposedly a nation of laws and if we want that to the be the case, we should not propose behaving differently.

We've allow the 10th to moulder in the grave for nearly a century. Changing that is going to take a long time and a sustained effort.
 
Prior to the 14th the fed could not send money to the states for the purpose of depriving life, liberty, and property with due process of law.

This statement confuses. You are saying that there were instances of the federal government wanting to send money to the states to deprive people.........

And the 14th now allows them to send money to deprive....... ???

Prior to the 14th the states could deny equal protection of the laws to any person within it's jurisdiction.

Could you please specify which laws you are referencing ?

And if you have examples outside of slavery that would be great.

Did the 14th provide equal protection to women ?

After.. they became willing partners with the feds in cases where our rights can be taken from us indiscriminately... and they lost all power to discriminate.

Uh, I am not so sure about that. Civil Rights legislation (passed in the 1960's) was intended to correct a problem with states discriminating. The Southern states were NOT willing partners to anything following the Civil War.
 
Since the advent of the Republic it was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution and Federal laws were the supreme law of the land, where the Tenth Amendment in no way mitigates that fact:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Constitution Article VI, Section 2

McCulloch v. Maryland:

“The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.”

McCulloch v. Maryland Case Brief Summary

US v. Darby:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
[…]
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Cooper v. Aaron:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states which are completely devoid of the 'authority' to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts.

The Tenth Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the states to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts, the notion that the Amendment 'empowers' the states to do so is unfounded ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, as a fact of Constitutional law, the OP is wrong.

Everything you quoted, knowlegabel conservatives would agree with. The Constitution created a specific federal government with specific enumercated responsibilities and all the power needed to fullfil those responsibilities ("granted powers" per your quote).

There is no question that nullification is not a legitimate policy/legal approach to disagreements over the activities of the federal government that may be thought outside of it's defined scope. This was the approach of the south as they saw things working against them. Such an approach is anarchy. If it were successfully utilized, it would throw the entire system into chaos. ANY law a state didn't like, even one that was clearly constitutional, could be side-stepped using some machination. In essence, the legitimacy of the federal government would end.

However, very few people have advocated such an approach. For the most part, people understand the intent of the the system as it was designed and also know that the federal government has extended itself well beyond it's original scope. What is to be done is a topic of an ongoing conversation, but nullifcation is not on the list of legitimate options.
 

Forum List

Back
Top