The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

[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.

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?

I guess the question is....have you ?

Huh ?

You would not ask that question if you had.

 

[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.

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."

Which is a load of crapp.

Marshall's winning views got us the Civil War.

Thanks John.

 

[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.

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)

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)

Now we are quoting a case that was decided over 200 years post ratification.

What a freaking joke.

What's more funny is this whole manufactured argument of states ignoring Federal Laws.

The constitution assumes the federal government would stay in it's appointed sandbox.

 

[Packyderm]

Also consider that pre-17th amendment the states had a role in making national law and were in a position to guard their own interests.

 

[Dante]

Also consider that pre-17th amendment the states had a role in making national law and were in a position to guard their own interests.

are you saying the states have no say in the making of federal law?

 

[Dante]

The constitution assumes the federal government would stay in it's appointed sandbox.

Really? The constitution 'assumes?'

 

[DGS49]

The Tenth confirms the viewpoint of all the states that ratified the original Constitution, to wit, the Federal government was established in order to handle the governmental functions that made sense for a central body, tying together a number of disparate "states." These functions are basically detailed in Article I, Section 8.

The States retained EVERYTHING ELSE. Everything else, including commercial law, family law, real estate law, criminal law, professional licensing, and on and on.

As an illustration of the Federal government's impotence outside it's specific charter, consider the Uniform Commercial Code. The "General Welfare" crowd (those who believe the Feds can do anything Congress deems will promote the "general welfare") would suppose that the Congress could enact a national commercial law, so that merchants would not have to learn and abide by the different commercial laws in 50+ states. And yet the Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from passing such a law(!). Chaos is prevented because each of the 50 states has individually passed an identical law, promulgated by the national commercial law bar. Congress has nothing to say about it.

For recent application of the Tenth, consider the USSC's recent deliberations on the "Individual Mandate" of O'Bama-Care. CONGRESS LACKS THE POWER TO DEMAND that anyone purchase health insurance. If Congress had that power, the case never would have made it to the USSC. The Court perversely ruled that the amount that the Administration said was NOT a tax, actually WAS a tax. Had it been a fee or a penalty, it would have resulted in the fee being struck down UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. (Congress DOES have the power to tax, for whatever reason it likes).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Lost?? How can a battle be lost when the words of the Constitution are clear about a limited Federal Govt or about freedom from central govt. The battle will be easily won as soon as there are enough conservatives on the court.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.

This is wrong on many levels, but given your inherent bias, you might not be receptive to the constitutional viewpoint.

 

[Gdjjr]

Today in History: James Madison Vetoes “Bonus Bill” as Unconstitutional
By: Dave Benner|Published on: Mar 3, 2020|Categories: History, James Madison

Today in History: James Madison Vetoes "Bonus Bill" as Unconstitutional | | Tenth Amendment Center

Excerpt:
Today in 1817, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 – a plan that called for the federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country. In a letter to Congress, the president explained his rationale. Out of all historical writings on constitutional interpretation, I believe it stands today as one of the most important.

Madison’s reasoning was simple – although he personally favored the idea of infrastructure construction, writing that he was “not unaware of the great importance” of such things, he denied the policy’s constitutionality on a federal level. Instead of upholding his own personal proclivities and allowing the Constitution to be undermined, he maintained that the Constitution was one of specific enumerated powers, and the document contained no expressed power for the federal government to do such a thing.

“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution,” he said, “and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Today in History: James Madison Vetoes “Bonus Bill” as Unconstitutional
By: Dave Benner|Published on: Mar 3, 2020|Categories: History, James Madison

Today in History: James Madison Vetoes "Bonus Bill" as Unconstitutional | | Tenth Amendment Center

Excerpt:
Today in 1817, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 – a plan that called for the federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country. In a letter to Congress, the president explained his rationale. Out of all historical writings on constitutional interpretation, I believe it stands today as one of the most important.

Madison’s reasoning was simple – although he personally favored the idea of infrastructure construction, writing that he was “not unaware of the great importance” of such things, he denied the policy’s constitutionality on a federal level. Instead of upholding his own personal proclivities and allowing the Constitution to be undermined, he maintained that the Constitution was one of specific enumerated powers, and the document contained no expressed power for the federal government to do such a thing.

“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution,” he said, “and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

Yes, the Democrats are so far outside of Constitutional provisions that they can be termed, unconstitutional. It really is unconstitutional for a Democrat to take the Constitutional oath of office wherein he pledges to preserve and protect the Constitution for which he has utter contempt.

 

[Gdjjr]

Yes, the Democrats are so far outside of Constitutional provisions that they can be termed, unconstitutional. It really is unconstitutional for a Democrat to take the Constitutional oath of office wherein he pledges to preserve and protect the Constitution for which he has utter contempt.

It's a bipartisan effort.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, the Democrats are so far outside of Constitutional provisions that they can be termed, unconstitutional. It really is unconstitutional for a Democrat to take the Constitutional oath of office wherein he pledges to preserve and protect the Constitution for which he has utter contempt.

It's a bipartisan effort.

what do you mean?

 

[Gdjjr]

what do you mean?

What part of bipartisan, or effort do you not understand? On line dictionaries are wonderful tools.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what do you mean?

What part of bipartisan, or effort do you not understand? On line dictionaries are wonderful tools.

actually Republicans and Democrats are opposites about judicial matters which explains why they fight to the death over SCOTUS nominees. Do you understand?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

what do you mean?

What part of bipartisan, or effort do you not understand? On line dictionaries are wonderful tools.

actually Republicans and Democrats are opposites about judicial matters which explains why they fight to the death over SCOTUS nominees. Do you understand?

Neither side knows squat about judicial matters. ALL United States Supreme Court nominees are vetted through and recommended by the American Bar Association. The ABA is the most liberal organization in America.

 

[Gdjjr]

actually Republicans and Democrats are opposites about judicial matters which explains why they fight to the death over SCOTUS nominees. Do you understand?

Actually they all go to the same schools, take the same tests and answer the questions appropriately.
Wasn't it John Roberts who claimed a Fine is really a Tax, therefore legitimate? What dissent have we heard about that from Republican judges?
Partisans are in EVERY walk of life. Being partisan means the prism breaks the light differently but the results render the Big Picture the same. Flawed. To start with, law was originally meant to punish for misdeeds against persons or property. Yet, here we are where law is used as a tool for restricting Liberty because "might happen", "what if" etc. Laws predicated on mind reading do not serve justice, they self serve a judiciary and law writers who *feel* special and that is on BOTH sides of the issues- that the ones you see in the news are theater created by the media proves nothing other than many are black robed idiots that cater to an ignorant (as in non-thinking, uninformed, misinformed, intellectually dishonest) group of partisans who no more have your best interests at heart than the local dog catcher. When in fact dog catchers (and private rescue centers) better serve the "public" than all judges combined. That you DON'T understand, apparently, puts you into a group- a group by definition controls the members of the group thought through a "narrative", which by definition is *narrow* in scope. Being "narrow" in scope doesn't provide room for all encompassing to reach an objective conclusion but succumbs to the objective of narrowing the cause de jour- to be objective one must consider ALL evidence- to have an objective confuses the issue and renders the conclusion subjective and that, my friend, is what the black robed idiots and partisan elites want. Divide and conquer.