The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

[Dante]

The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

Oh yeah. Lots of problems because one word was left out:

That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word “expressly” before the word “delegated...
​

- CRS LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."
​

- Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[legaleagle_45]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes,

Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

 

[Dante]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

It isn't one of perspective, it is one of conclusion. Dante may have looked at things through a few perspectives, but had to reach a conclusion.

Some people bring forth and focus on arguments that ultimately failed to win the day. They do this in the sense of attempting to argue the battles were not decided, concluded, won by one side. It reminds me of those who argue the issues of the American civil war form the side of the Confederacy -- they lost. They signed on to the United States of America. enough

that said, I may agree with reasonings and arguments that lost. But in the end one view has to prevail and win the day.

 

[Dante]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

 

[Dante]

Yes,

Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The problem is the real world where Americans worked things out and Madison's views on HOW things should work out. Madison lost some and won some as did others. Continually arguing that Madison's view was the one true correct view is silly.

 

[Dante]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes,

Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The problem is the real world where Americans worked things out and Madison's views on HOW things should work out. Madison lost some and won some as did others. Continually arguing that Madison's view was the one true correct view is silly.

Is it your habit to make things up to argue against ?

I simply pointed out what Madison said which I think counters the idea that the exclusion of the word has some meaning.

I have not argued against what the real world has arrived at.

It was one way yesterday, another today and will find yet others in the days to come.

I came here to have a conversation....if it is your intent to lecture...I'll bow out. I've noticed a lot of people started threads in this forum.

You must work pretty quick.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.

I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.

Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

You might want to look at the case law concerning 10th Amendment claims, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law:

“The [Tenth A]mendment 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

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts.

And this is indeed the original intent of the Founding Generation: that Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, safeguarding the rights of the American citizens who reside in the states, whose rights are neither subject to 'majority rule' nor the 'will of the people':

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.

Article VI, US Constitution

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

No, Chief Justice Marshall was following the Constitution, and the original intent of the Framing Generation.

 

[Dante]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

If you want to be treated as some kind of an academic or pedant please refrain from writing things like Marshall was full of shit.

Dante: "The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views."

SunDevil: "Actually, we don't have 200 years of history. The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned. Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected. The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does."

translation?

"As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems)" -- Huh? What have you read about Marshall and I mean books, not web posts or pages. why not try one of Jeffrey Rosen's books?

 

[Dante]

Yes,

Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The problem is the real world where Americans worked things out and Madison's views on HOW things should work out. Madison lost some and won some as did others. Continually arguing that Madison's view was the one true correct view is silly.

Is it your habit to make things up to argue against ?

I simply pointed out what Madison said which I think counters the idea that the exclusion of the word has some meaning.

I have not argued against what the real world has arrived at.

It was one way yesterday, another today and will find yet others in the days to come.

I came here to have a conversation....if it is your intent to lecture...I'll bow out. I've noticed a lot of people started threads in this forum.

You must work pretty quick.

Did you simply point out what Madison said or did you take a stand, take a side? Please...

 

[Dante]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.

I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.

Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.

there you go again. "They sure seemed to care less..." If they couldn't have cared less they would not have used citations and other arguments justifying overruling previous decisions. Please, be more succinct

If you have not seen arguments over the word "expressly" being excluded, maybe you're not all that well read?

 

[Dante]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

No, Chief Justice Marshall was following the Constitution, and the original intent of the Framing Generation.

Careful, this little devil is quite sensitive to being corrected

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

The intent and understanding of the 10th Amendment has been consistent since its ratification, as the Court explained in Darby:it was never the intent of the Framers that the states might seek to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; the Founding Generation sought to be citizens of one National government, a government of their creation, not 'citizens' of states – where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (See US Term Limits v. Thornton)

 

[Dante]

"...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

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts....

thank you

 

[Dante]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

The intent and understanding of the 10th Amendment has been consistent since its ratification, as the Court explained in Darby:it was never the intent of the Framers that the states might seek to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; the Founding Generation sought to be citizens of one National government, a government of their creation, not 'citizens' of states – where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (See US Term Limits v. Thornton)

right: "The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views."