The Significance of the 9th and 10th Amendments

[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.

Again - bullshit.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy". - Thomas Jefferson

THEY appointed themselves - NOT the Constitution. There is absolutely NOTHING "Constitutional" about the "Supremes". NOTHING.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

The Commerce Clause is the most ridiculous "clause" ever enacted. Again, as a direct result of the "commerce" clause - Judges ruled that a farmer, who was growing his own wheat, for his own consumption - and not for sale anywhere, was, indeed engaging in "interstate commerce" in that he MIGHT have purchased wheat from an interstate buyer had he not grown his own. THIS is the kind of bullshit logic that Clayton throws around as "justice".

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Friends]

'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.

Rights are what the government chooses to allow. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, go to North Korea. You will soon see how mistaken you are.

 

[Friends]

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.

Which god granted the right to liberty? The one who decreed Exodus 31:14-15 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth anywork therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth anywork in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

 

[Dante]

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

The Commerce Clause is the most ridiculous "clause" ever enacted. Again, as a direct result of the "commerce" clause - Judges ruled that a farmer, who was growing his own wheat, for his own consumption - and not for sale anywhere, was, indeed engaging in "interstate commerce" in that he MIGHT have purchased wheat from an interstate buyer had he not grown his own. THIS is the kind of bullshit logic that Clayton throws around as "justice".

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

your pedestrian opinion is noted

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'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.

Rights are what the government chooses to allow. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, go to North Korea. You will soon see how mistaken you are.

In the United States rights are that which the people acknowledge by consensus and have codified in the Constitution and its case law; the people created the Federal government, the government and the people are one in the same, with government acting at the behest of the people. (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton)

And in accordance with the people's wishes, government acts in a manner beneficial to society as a whole, where government excess and overreach are checked by the democratic process, and failing that, the judiciary, acting as authorized by Articles III and VI to invalidate acts of government repugnant to the Constitution, acts that indeed violate the inalienable rights of the people. (McCulloch v. Maryland)

This is why the Framing Generation sought to make the Federal government, Federal laws, and rulings of the Federal courts supreme: to safeguard the rights of American citizens residing in the states, rendering their inalienable rights immune from attack by the state, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.' (Cooper v. Aaron)

Consequently, notion of the states having 'more power' or 'states' rights' is completely unfounded and devoid of merit, as it was not the intent of the people during the Foundation Era to protect their inalienable rights from Federal tyranny only to subject themselves to the tyranny of the states.

 

[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.

Rights are what the government chooses to allow. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, go to North Korea. You will soon see how mistaken you are.

In the United States rights are that which the people acknowledge by consensus and have codified in the Constitution and its case law; the people created the Federal government, the government and the people are one in the same, with government acting at the behest of the people. (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton)

And in accordance with the people's wishes, government acts in a manner beneficial to society as a whole, where government excess and overreach are checked by the democratic process, and failing that, the judiciary, acting as authorized by Articles III and VI to invalidate acts of government repugnant to the Constitution, acts that indeed violate the inalienable rights of the people. (McCulloch v. Maryland)

This is why the Framing Generation sought to make the Federal government, Federal laws, and rulings of the Federal courts supreme: to safeguard the rights of American citizens residing in the states, rendering their inalienable rights immune from attack by the state, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.' (Cooper v. Aaron)

Consequently, notion of the states having 'more power' or 'states' rights' is completely unfounded and devoid of merit, as it was not the intent of the people during the Foundation Era to protect their inalienable rights from Federal tyranny only to subject themselves to the tyranny of the states.

'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.

Rights are what the government chooses to allow. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, go to North Korea. You will soon see how mistaken you are.

You obviously have no idea what the framers intended when they placed those words in the preamble. Any right "granted" by man can be taken away (as many have). Rights granted by the "Creator" can not. Is it really that hard to understand? or are you so enamored with being lauded over by a greedy, nasty monster in Washington that you - not unlike the German people - are so willing to turn your very existence over to a bunch of thieves and liars?

Your choice. Me? Screw the government and those lemmings (like you) who have forgotten what the word "freedom" means.

 

[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.

Rights are what the government chooses to allow. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, go to North Korea. You will soon see how mistaken you are.

In the United States rights are that which the people acknowledge by consensus and have codified in the Constitution and its case law; the people created the Federal government, the government and the people are one in the same, with government acting at the behest of the people. (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton)

And in accordance with the people's wishes, government acts in a manner beneficial to society as a whole, where government excess and overreach are checked by the democratic process, and failing that, the judiciary, acting as authorized by Articles III and VI to invalidate acts of government repugnant to the Constitution, acts that indeed violate the inalienable rights of the people. (McCulloch v. Maryland)

This is why the Framing Generation sought to make the Federal government, Federal laws, and rulings of the Federal courts supreme: to safeguard the rights of American citizens residing in the states, rendering their inalienable rights immune from attack by the state, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.' (Cooper v. Aaron)

Consequently, notion of the states having 'more power' or 'states' rights' is completely unfounded and devoid of merit, as it was not the intent of the people during the Foundation Era to protect their inalienable rights from Federal tyranny only to subject themselves to the tyranny of the states.

Such lofty language. Yet, you have not disproven one question I posed to you. Not one. You serve the government master. Live with it, fool.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And still nothing from the resident "legal mind" Clayton. He Can not refute my assertion - so he goes away. So much for a "nation of laws"......

 

[dblack]

I answered "Yes", but mostly as a show of support for the ideal. In reality, the ninth and tenth are largely ignored.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I answered "Yes", but mostly as a show of support for the ideal. In reality, the ninth and tenth are largely ignored.

Indeed. The problem is that the 9th and the 10th give the majority of the power to the "people" (the states" but the federal government chooses to ignore this little fact. Since they decided to ignore the states right's - we have turned nearly every facet of our lives over to these assholes. Given them power that they were NEVER intended to have by the Founders.

 

[dblack]

I answered "Yes", but mostly as a show of support for the ideal. In reality, the ninth and tenth are largely ignored.

Indeed. The problem is that the 9th and the 10th give the majority of the power to the "people" (the states" but the federal government chooses to ignore this little fact. Since they decided to ignore the states right's - we have turned nearly every facet of our lives over to these assholes. Given them power that they were NEVER intended to have by the Founders.

The irony is the way they've twisted the idea of "empowering the people" to suggest that government is the means of that empowerment.