The Significance of the 9th and 10th Amendments

[DonaldFG]

These are dangerous amendments which could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to repeal much of the economic and environmental legislation signed during the twentieth century.

They are unnecessary because we the people already exert power through our elected officials.

You still think this is working? I don't. That method of expressing the will of the people is dead.

 

[DonaldFG]

MAIN
...
Madison in his explanation of the 9th Amendment explained the difference between the 10th and the 9th. The Ninth: "to guard against latitude of interpretation." The Tenth: "excluded every source of power not within the constitution itself."
...

You explained well the purpose of protecting state's rights.

But what about the people's rights? The powers reserved to the people are not limited in any way, and it is up to us to protect our rights if our representatives are letting us down.

 

[Tennyson]

MAIN
...
Madison in his explanation of the 9th Amendment explained the difference between the 10th and the 9th. The Ninth: "to guard against latitude of interpretation." The Tenth: "excluded every source of power not within the constitution itself."
...

You explained well the purpose of protecting state's rights.

But what about the people's rights? The powers reserved to the people are not limited in any way, and it is up to us to protect our rights if our representatives are letting us down.

The Ninth still protects indivudual rights with plain reading language, I was just adding a little more overlooked depth of the amendment.

 

[DonaldFG]

MAIN
...
Madison in his explanation of the 9th Amendment explained the difference between the 10th and the 9th. The Ninth: "to guard against latitude of interpretation." The Tenth: "excluded every source of power not within the constitution itself."
...

You explained well the purpose of protecting state's rights.

But what about the people's rights? The powers reserved to the people are not limited in any way, and it is up to us to protect our rights if our representatives are letting us down.

The Ninth still protects individual rights with plain reading language, I was just adding a little more overlooked depth of the amendment.

I think these Amendments declare the significant rights of the citizenry in general rather than individual rights.

 

[Friends]

These are dangerous amendments which could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to repeal much of the economic and environmental legislation signed during the twentieth century.

They are unnecessary because we the people already exert power through our elected officials.

You still think this is working? I don't. That method of expressing the will of the people is dead.

Yu think that because your candidates lose elections.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Rights' do not come from the Constitution, they come from the mind of humans, just like all other concepts, expressions and words. They are and mean what we decide.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I haven't gone into the specific legislative history of the Ninth and Tenth, but the Ninth appears to be a manifestation of the concept that underlies the Declaration of Independence. Namely, that our rights come from God (or Nature, if you prefer), and NOT the government, so that if the government articulates a number of rights, that is not a comprehensive statement of the rights that one has, but merely the ones that Government chooses to emphasize.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) does not grant the right to travel from place to place, or to own property, or to enter into contracts, but these rights are just as real as the right to speak freely, to be free from unreasonable searches, and so on.

The Tenth Amendment reflects the Founders' concept that the U.S. is a collection of sovereign states who have formed a national government for the limited purposes articulated (mainly) in Article I, Section 8. Everything else is reserved to the states and/or to the people. It is quite a logical listing, and includes naturalization and patent matters, printing money, and so on.

Thus, EDUCATION, for example, is not mentioned anywhere in Article I, so the Federal government is prohibited from doing anything with respect to education, as it is "...reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Same for healthcare and pensions and radio and television.

See?

Incorrect:

“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.”

United States v. Darby LII Legal Information Institute

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the courts determine if the National government has acted in an appropriate manner, pursuant to a permitted end. That a given power is not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's the sole purview of the states or that Congress may not exercise that power; the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to enact all manner of necessary and proper regulatory policies, such as workplace safety, public accommodations, and wage and compensation standards.

“The [10th] 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.” ibid

Here we go again with this clown's nonsense. Tell me fool, Where EXACTLY in the Constitution does it name the SCOTUS as the final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what is not. Where? Or, did one day, the merely appoint themselves as the "authority"?

The Commerce Clause isn't worth the paper it is written on. It was used (originally) to keep a farmer from eating his own wheat. Get your act together or shut the fuck up. Your bullshit "laws" are used to enslave - NOT free people.

Try watching this you idiot. It just "might" free your dumbass.

 

[RandallFlagg]

'Rights' do not come from the Constitution, they come from the mind of humans, just like all other concepts, expressions and words. They are and mean what we decide.

Wrong again.

 

[RandallFlagg]

DonaldFG

Well I was hoping for more numerous responses. But I do appreciate your comments.

None of you seem to think that these Amendments leave the people with much in the way of political power. My thinking is just the opposite. The federal government is intended to be limited by the delegated powers...

Now you're talking.

Your opinion on 'these Amendments' leaving 'the people with much in the way of political power' is not necessarily opposite to those of others. Where others differ is on the interpretation and extent of those powers, as in interpreting them broadly versus narrowly.

Take the example of Justice Hugo Black. That man was a textualist, but not a strict constructionist. He was an FDR appointee who went against Presidents and tried his best to allow the Congress as much leeway as he thought the TEXT would allow.

Do you believe in a 'right to privacy?'

Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

---

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509] Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.​

The Federal government was NEVER intended to wield the power that it has. It has been a slow and insidious takeover from the State's Rights and appropriated them to the Fed. Again, watch and learn.

 

[there4eyeM]

Where else could 'rights', a word and a concept, come from than from the mind of humans?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Where else could 'rights', a word and a concept, come from than from the mind of humans?

The framers used the words "Endowed by their Creator" for a reason. There are some rights that are granted by God - those being "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness". Is it your assertion that we don't have a God-given right to those three things? Because if that is your belief then I understand where you are coming from - a secular-progressive viewpoint that I neither accept nor do I follow.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I am wondering what the folks here believe about the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I think these are extremely powerful statements.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

What do you think this means for the people (the citizens of the USA)?

Normally, it would, of course mean that the State's retain the majority of power in the individual state. Unfortunately, the Federal government has ignored these two important amendments for the last 150 years and now, we have a monster on the loose.

 

[Dante]

DonaldFG

Well I was hoping for more numerous responses. But I do appreciate your comments.

None of you seem to think that these Amendments leave the people with much in the way of political power. My thinking is just the opposite. The federal government is intended to be limited by the delegated powers...

Now you're talking.

Your opinion on 'these Amendments' leaving 'the people with much in the way of political power' is not necessarily opposite to those of others. Where others differ is on the interpretation and extent of those powers, as in interpreting them broadly versus narrowly.

Take the example of Justice Hugo Black. That man was a textualist, but not a strict constructionist. He was an FDR appointee who went against Presidents and tried his best to allow the Congress as much leeway as he thought the TEXT would allow.

Do you believe in a 'right to privacy?'

Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

---

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509] Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.​

The Federal government was NEVER intended to wield the power that it has. It has been a slow and insidious takeover from the State's Rights and appropriated them to the Fed. Again, watch and learn.

why would any sane person watch a crazy person's video link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am wondering what the folks here believe about the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I think these are extremely powerful statements.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

What do you think this means for the people (the citizens of the USA)?

Normally, it would, of course mean that the State's retain the majority of power in the individual state. Unfortunately, the Federal government has ignored these two important amendments for the last 150 years and now, we have a monster on the loose.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, with the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and Constitutional jurisprudence:

'Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional.'

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

The fundamental and inalienable rights of the American citizens who happen to reside in the states are immune from attack by the states, where the states never had the “majority of the power.”

Consequently there is no 'monster,' the notion is sophomoric demagoguery, the Federal government has functioned since its inception as intended by the Framers, in accordance with Constitutional case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[there4eyeM]

Where else could 'rights', a word and a concept, come from than from the mind of humans?

The framers used the words "Endowed by their Creator" for a reason. There are some rights that are granted by God - those being "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness". Is it your assertion that we don't have a God-given right to those three things? Because if that is your belief then I understand where you are coming from - a secular-progressive viewpoint that I neither accept nor do I follow.

Yes, they used the metaphor 'creator' (not 'God'), in order to convey meaning in the way that 18th century minds worked.
Today, we understand the universe, psychology and linguistics somewhat better. We know that all human knowledge comes by way of perceptions. We know that perceptions can only be subjective. We know that the symbols we create to represent ideas and concepts are and can only be of human origins.
'Rights' is a word that communicates a desire, a belief, an aspiration. It has value. It is very overworked, however, and has become, at best, poorly understood. We do not have to look far to see that what a right is has often changed. The plantation owners had the right to slaves until the slaves had the right to freedom.
This is nothing against God. The problem is that 'God', the word, is also now so thoroughly over used and misunderstood as to be virtually useless.
Merely to contemplate the true nature of what a Creator of All, what That One would be like, would lead us to reject almost all the current practices and espousals associated with 'God'. Obviously, few meditate in such a way, but barge ahead into childish projections of a Santa Clause-like Fairy-Father on a throne.
A Creator of the Universe may have endowed us with a mind and may have endowed existence with the potential for 'rights' to be brought into being by that mind. We can not know the mind of Such a One, and teaching what it would be is presumptuous at least. Words limit, they define, because they come from our limited mind. The One, if such exists, could not be limited.

 

[natstew]

Interesting piece on the tenth amendment verses the "commerce clause":

Sen. Mike Lee explains how this one misinterpreted clause of the Constitution could make Congress power unlimited Video Video TheBlaze.com

 

[RandallFlagg]

I am wondering what the folks here believe about the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I think these are extremely powerful statements.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

What do you think this means for the people (the citizens of the USA)?

Normally, it would, of course mean that the State's retain the majority of power in the individual state. Unfortunately, the Federal government has ignored these two important amendments for the last 150 years and now, we have a monster on the loose.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, with the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and Constitutional jurisprudence:

'Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional.'

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

The fundamental and inalienable rights of the American citizens who happen to reside in the states are immune from attack by the states, where the states never had the “majority of the power.”

Consequently there is no 'monster,' the notion is sophomoric demagoguery, the Federal government has functioned since its inception as intended by the Framers, in accordance with Constitutional case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

There you go again, hypocrite. Answer the damned question. WHO appointed the SCOTUS as the "supreme arbiter" of all things "constitutional"? The answer? They appointed themselves. 90% of laws today are NOT Constitutional. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

And it you don't believe that the federal government is a "monster" that has overstepped it's authority a thousand times over by stealing power from the states - then you are truly a foolish person.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am wondering what the folks here believe about the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I think these are extremely powerful statements.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

What do you think this means for the people (the citizens of the USA)?

Normally, it would, of course mean that the State's retain the majority of power in the individual state. Unfortunately, the Federal government has ignored these two important amendments for the last 150 years and now, we have a monster on the loose.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, with the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and Constitutional jurisprudence:

'Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional.'

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

The fundamental and inalienable rights of the American citizens who happen to reside in the states are immune from attack by the states, where the states never had the “majority of the power.”

Consequently there is no 'monster,' the notion is sophomoric demagoguery, the Federal government has functioned since its inception as intended by the Framers, in accordance with Constitutional case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

There you go again, hypocrite. Answer the damned question. WHO appointed the SCOTUS as the "supreme arbiter" of all things "constitutional"? The answer? They appointed themselves. 90% of laws today are NOT Constitutional. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

And it you don't believe that the federal government is a "monster" that has overstepped it's authority a thousand times over by stealing power from the states - then you are truly a foolish person.

You're as ridiculous as you are ignorant and wrong.

Settled and established facts of Constitutional law are presented to you, accept them or not, it makes no difference, as they'll always remain settled and established facts of Constitutional law.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I am wondering what the folks here believe about the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I think these are extremely powerful statements.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

What do you think this means for the people (the citizens of the USA)?

Normally, it would, of course mean that the State's retain the majority of power in the individual state. Unfortunately, the Federal government has ignored these two important amendments for the last 150 years and now, we have a monster on the loose.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, with the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and Constitutional jurisprudence:

'Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional.'

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

The fundamental and inalienable rights of the American citizens who happen to reside in the states are immune from attack by the states, where the states never had the “majority of the power.”

Consequently there is no 'monster,' the notion is sophomoric demagoguery, the Federal government has functioned since its inception as intended by the Framers, in accordance with Constitutional case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

There you go again, hypocrite. Answer the damned question. WHO appointed the SCOTUS as the "supreme arbiter" of all things "constitutional"? The answer? They appointed themselves. 90% of laws today are NOT Constitutional. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

And it you don't believe that the federal government is a "monster" that has overstepped it's authority a thousand times over by stealing power from the states - then you are truly a foolish person.

You're as ridiculous as you are ignorant and wrong.

Settled and established facts of Constitutional law are presented to you, accept them or not, it makes no difference, as they'll always remain settled and established facts of Constitutional law.

One word for you BULLSHIT. PROVE ME WRONG. I'M WAITING, HYPOCRITE.

Again - WHO MADE THE SCOTUS THE FINAL ARBITER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? AND WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE JUDGES THE "AUTHORITY". Answer the damned question you phony.

 

[RandallFlagg]

DonaldFG

Well I was hoping for more numerous responses. But I do appreciate your comments.

None of you seem to think that these Amendments leave the people with much in the way of political power. My thinking is just the opposite. The federal government is intended to be limited by the delegated powers...

Now you're talking.

Your opinion on 'these Amendments' leaving 'the people with much in the way of political power' is not necessarily opposite to those of others. Where others differ is on the interpretation and extent of those powers, as in interpreting them broadly versus narrowly.

Take the example of Justice Hugo Black. That man was a textualist, but not a strict constructionist. He was an FDR appointee who went against Presidents and tried his best to allow the Congress as much leeway as he thought the TEXT would allow.

Do you believe in a 'right to privacy?'

Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

---

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509] Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.​

The Federal government was NEVER intended to wield the power that it has. It has been a slow and insidious takeover from the State's Rights and appropriated them to the Fed. Again, watch and learn.

why would any sane person watch a crazy person's video link?

Hey - remain stupid. That's your "right". Your "representatives" count on it.