The Tenth Ammendment Problem

[Hobbit]

So, I went looking through the Constitution to see what was there, and I found this.

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.

I'd seen it before, but I started thinking about it. Apparantly, any power not specifically given to the federal government is supposed to be left to the states or the people. That's funny, becuase there's nothing in the Constitution about providing retirement benefits, health care, art funding, education regulation, minimum wage, welfare, or any of a dozen other things. How are we supposed to trust the government when they are so far outside their constitutional bounds that we might as well bury the whole document and let them do what they want.

 

[jillian]

So, I went looking through the Constitution to see what was there, and I found this.



I'd seen it before, but I started thinking about it. Apparantly, any power not specifically given to the federal government is supposed to be left to the states or the people. That's funny, becuase there's nothing in the Constitution about providing retirement benefits, health care, art funding, education regulation, minimum wage, welfare, or any of a dozen other things. How are we supposed to trust the government when they are so far outside their constitutional bounds that we might as well bury the whole document and let them do what they want.

The Federal government is allowed to do anything "necessary and proper". This is pretty well-settled law. And no problem with asking questions, but the Constitition has to be viewed as a whole and each section has to be read in conjunction with every other.

Interesting though that your only objections seem to be about the things that help people. But there ya go.

 

[90K]

it's actually a democratic ammendment for the 'just in case" situations that come up. But all seriousness interesting find.

 

[KarlMarx]

So, I went looking through the Constitution to see what was there, and I found this.



I'd seen it before, but I started thinking about it. Apparantly, any power not specifically given to the federal government is supposed to be left to the states or the people. That's funny, becuase there's nothing in the Constitution about providing retirement benefits, health care, art funding, education regulation, minimum wage, welfare, or any of a dozen other things. How are we supposed to trust the government when they are so far outside their constitutional bounds that we might as well bury the whole document and let them do what they want.

You have it right, at least as far as what is a right and what isn't.... that's why Roe vs. Wade is such a piece of trash.

Regardless of how you feel about a woman's right to an abortion, it still stinks, this amendment is the reason why. Roe vs. Wade took away the states' right to determine whether abortion should be legal or not.

Unfortunately, this also means that Brown vs Board of Education (Supreme Court decision that ended segregation) may have been out of bounds in this regard, too. I'm not 100% sure about that, perhaps Avatar or Abbey can enlighten us.

Further, segregation was brought on by the Supreme Court in Plessey vs Fergusson. That decision used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendement to justify "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains etc for blacks and whites.

P.S. Yes that equal protection clause is the same one that people who push gay marriage like to refer to. The fact that it was also used to justify segregation is a fact that some pro-gay marriage types would rather you not know about.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Welcome to American conservatism, Hobbit.

The 10th amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution's conservatism. Along with the 9th, which says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what's in the Constitution.

The 10th casts in stone, the idea that the Federal government's powers are strictly limited - that the government is NOT supposed to be our nanny, our mother and father, or all the other things modern liberals want it to be.

Unsurprisingly, the 10th is the most-violated part of the Constitution, by liberals in both major parties. These violations came to a head in the mid-1930s, when then-President FDR kept trying to implement huge programs of Federal "help" for people suffering in the Great Depression. The Supreme Court kept finding them unconstitutional, violating the 10th amendment, though the decisions were often 6-3 or even 5-4.

FDR started an incredible campaign of personal attacks against the nine justices, blaming them directly for the suffering. He finally threatened to add six more justices to the Court, picked by him for their loyalty to his nanny-state ideals rather than for any fealty to the Constitution, of course, to overrule the law-abiding justices.

Two weeks later, one of the law-abiders caved, and wrote the opinion in a 5-4 decision upholding a minimum wage. In it, he invented a new definition of "liberty", which included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life... and of course, the Federal govt IS supposed to legislate to protect our "liberty", is it not? This gave them carte blanche to legislate on virtually any subject in any area, whether explicitly listed in the Constitution or not. The other four law-abiders screamed their heads off in protest, but they were now in the minority. A deluge of cases followed, all decided in favor of the Nanny State mentality, and government began exploding from that point. (That pivotal case was West Coast Hotel v. Parrish). Liberals have never looked back.

Yes, the 10th says what it says. But not many left in our government, pay much attention to it any more.

 

[dilloduck]

The Federal government is allowed to do anything "necessary and proper". This is pretty well-settled law. And no problem with asking questions, but the Constitition has to be viewed as a whole and each section has to be read in conjunction with every other.

Interesting though that your only objections seem to be about the things that help people. But there ya go.

It's the interpretation of far too many that the objections "help" people. Teaching people to expect and force others to take care of them IS the liberal poison that's killing our country.

 

[Hobbit]

The Federal government is allowed to do anything "necessary and proper". This is pretty well-settled law. And no problem with asking questions, but the Constitition has to be viewed as a whole and each section has to be read in conjunction with every other.

Interesting though that your only objections seem to be about the things that help people. But there ya go.

Ah, you mean the well-named 'elastic clause.' That is not carte blanche for the federal government to turn our country socialist. Oh, and as for 'helping' people, none of the crap I mentioned helps anybody but politicians, and if you think otherwise, then you need to take a basic macroeconomics course and start looking at the bigger picture.

Oh, and the elastic clause also does not override the 10th ammendment. The ammendment came later, and, according to constitutional law, ammendments override the original letter of the constitution, just like the 16th ammendment overrides the constitutional prohibition on taxing individuals and the 21st overrides the 18th.

 

[Little-Acorn]

jillian carefully left out the part of the "necessary and proper" clause, that limits what Congress can actually do. Liberals always do that, since the full quote bans most of their agenda.

The full quote comes at the end of the section where the Constitution lists the powers the Fed CAN have. And it says:

Congress shall have the power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution...

In other words, the n&p clause merely reaffirms that Congress can only make laws in the areas specified by the Constitution. NOT in any area jillian feels like because she thinks it will "help".

We'll probably get into the misquotes of the "welfare clause" and the pretzel-like twists of the "commerce clause" soon, too. It's amazing just how much liberals will distort the Constitution in their quest for government-uber-alles.

 

[jillian]

jillian carefully left out the part of the "necessary and proper" clause, that limits what Congress can actually do. Liberals always do that, since the full quote bans most of their agenda.

The full quote comes at the end of the section where the Constitution lists the powers the Fed CAN have. And it says:

Congress shall have the power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution...

In other words, the n&p clause merely reaffirms that Congress can only make laws in the areas specified by the Constitution. NOT in any area jillian feels like because she thinks it will "help".

We'll probably get into the misquotes of the "welfare clause" and the pretzel-like twists of the "commerce clause" soon, too. It's amazing just how much liberals will distort the Constitution in their quest for government-uber-alles.

If you want to respond to me, you can feel free to respond directly and not in the third person.

I "left out" those words because they aren't relevant to the Court's determination of this issue. As for the commerce clause, it's been pretty heavily construed... perhaps a bit too heavily... but maybe not. Should be taken on a case-by-case basis, no?

As for the "liberal" thing you like tossing around so much, if you think that you guys aren't trying to make the Court political with all your talk about changing the way the Constitution has always been construed, that's kind of disingenuous.

Just out of curiosity, you seem to have a pretty detailed interest in this. What do you do for a living?

 

[Hobbit]

If you want to respond to me, you can feel free to respond directly and not in the third person.

I "left out" those words because they aren't relevant to the Court's determination of this issue. As for the commerce clause, it's been pretty heavily construed... perhaps a bit too heavily... but maybe not. Should be taken on a case-by-case basis, no?

So, the court says that doing something outside of the bounds of the Constitution is 'necessary and proper,' totally ignoring the part where it says you can't do that, and the entire quote that expressly forbids the way they ruled is just called irrelevant. The law says I can kill people in self-defense, given that a lethal reaction was an appropriate response. Can I call the second half irrelevant and kill somebody who's trying to give me a wedgie? I mean, I am defending myself.

 

[Avatar4321]

My guess would be that desegregation would still fall under equal protection in the Constitution even if the 10th amendment was respected.

As for only having a problem with the "good things" thats exactly how all tyranny's start. the tyrant gives the people all the good things to get the people on his side and then when he has the power the people ignore all the abuses he makes.

You'd think after 6000 years of human history showing this exact pattern again and again that we'd understand this concept by now. This is exactly why the power was reserved to the states and kept from the federal government.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, the court says that doing something outside of the bounds of the Constitution is 'necessary and proper,' totally ignoring the part where it says you can't do that, and the entire quote that expressly forbids the way they ruled is just called irrelevant. The law says I can kill people in self-defense, given that a lethal reaction was an appropriate response. Can I call the second half irrelevant and kill somebody who's trying to give me a wedgie? I mean, I am defending myself.

Hobbit, as I pointed out, the people who decided to violate the 10th amendment (one "m", by the way) invented a new and bizarre definition for straightforward constitutional terms to do it. They have done this to the N&P clause, the Commerce clause, and several other parts that stood in their way. Some of those people were sitting on court benches when they did it. And liberals immediately fall in line behind the rulings, while carefully ingnoring what the Cosntitution clearly says to the contrary. We have our rulings, don't bother us with that antiquated document! The fact that the ruling didn't change the actual text and meaning of the law, is not something they want discussed, much less enforced. They see the Constitution, not as a framework with a philosophy to be followed, but as an obstacle to be gotten around by any means necessary, including lying about what it clearly says.

You have identified the single biggest difference beween American conservatives and modern liberals (in both parties). Conservatives happily see that the Constitution jives closely with their own philosophy of small, strictly limited central government, with changes possible only with broad agreement of large majorities of the entire country, with most power left to lower governments or no govt at all ("to the people"). And so conservatives support it as written and ratified. Liberals see it as getting in the way of how things "should" be done: Rule of men rather than of law, large central government involvement in nearly every facet of life, unlimited power of a ruling class (elected or otherwise)... all the things the early colonials came here from Europe to escape. And so they try their best to find ways to thwart the Constitution's small-govt philosophy, and invent amazing structures of contrary rulings to hide behind and ignore much of it as written and ratified.

 

[glockmail]

.....

Just out of curiosity, you seem to have a pretty detailed interest in this. What do you do for a living?

Here it comes: 'You're not a lawyer and I am so you don't know what you're taliking about.'

 

[jillian]

Here it comes: 'You're not a lawyer and I am so you don't know what you're taliking about.'

No. I think he's smart.... (I disagree with him, but that doesn't make him less smart) which is why I asked.

I would point out, though, that in most instances, and with only very rare exceptions, people working in a given field are more knowledgeable about that field than people who are not. Would you disagree?

 

[glockmail]

.....
I would point out, though, that in most instances, and with only very rare exceptions, people working in a given field are more knowledgeable about that field than people who are not. Would you disagree?

Not in the area of law, due to the incredible number of decisions made daily by Judges who defy common sense. Plus all those lawyers defending criminals that they know are guilty, and representing plaintiffs that are shysters.

Come to think of it not in the car business either. I’ve yet to meet a salesman who knows more about the vehicle he’s selling than I do.

Then there’s my insurance agent’s assistant, screwing up a third time on my umbrella policy.

Oh, yeah, my bookkeeper. I went through three before I decided to do it all myself.

Then there is that Licensed plumber I hired, who had the entire house pressurized to 150 psi. And the carpenter that didn’t put enough nails on the sheathing for the entire house. Oh, yeah- the building inspector who could not read plans!

The company that made my refrigerator: I’m about to get my third ice maker (complete unit, probably $150), when the obvious problem is that they manufactured these with the wrong type of switch (75 cents).

As wifie says often, “it’s not enough to do your job, but you have to do everyone else’s job too.”

 

[jillian]

Not in the area of law, due to the incredible number of decisions made daily by Judges who defy common sense. Plus all those lawyers defending criminals that they know are guilty, and representing plaintiffs that are shysters.

Come to think of it not in the car business either. I’ve yet to meet a salesman who knows more about the vehicle he’s selling than I do.

Then there’s my insurance agent’s assistant, screwing up a third time on my umbrella policy.

Oh, yeah, my bookkeeper. I went through three before I decided to do it all myself.

Then there is that Licensed plumber I hired, who had the entire house pressurized to 150 psi. And the carpenter that didn’t put enough nails on the sheathing for the entire house. Oh, yeah- the building inspector who could not read plans!

The company that made my refrigerator: I’m about to get my third ice maker (complete unit, probably $150), when the obvious problem is that they manufactured these with the wrong type of switch (75 cents).

As wifie says often, “it’s not enough to do your job, but you have to do everyone else’s job too.”

You might want to reconsider that. Lots of people have the misguided view that they can do law as well as lawyers. You wouldn't pull your own teeth or diagnose your own medical problems, would you?

Besides, I've read your comments on law. They're shown a distinct lack of understanding mixed with an arrogance that's pretty funny to watch. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the legislature has any Constitutional right to tell the Courts to take a hike.

Now... Acorn... his observations are interesting and certainly borne out by at least part of the judiciary, like Antonin Scalia, if not agreed with by most jurists.

You able to get that swelled head through a doorpost?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not in the area of law, due to the incredible number of decisions made daily by Judges who defy common sense. Plus all those lawyers defending criminals that they know are guilty, and representing plaintiffs that are shysters.

Come to think of it not in the car business either. I’ve yet to meet a salesman who knows more about the vehicle he’s selling than I do.

Then there’s my insurance agent’s assistant, screwing up a third time on my umbrella policy.

Oh, yeah, my bookkeeper. I went through three before I decided to do it all myself.

Then there is that Licensed plumber I hired, who had the entire house pressurized to 150 psi. And the carpenter that didn’t put enough nails on the sheathing for the entire house. Oh, yeah- the building inspector who could not read plans!

The company that made my refrigerator: I’m about to get my third ice maker (complete unit, probably $150), when the obvious problem is that they manufactured these with the wrong type of switch (75 cents).

As wifie says often, “it’s not enough to do your job, but you have to do everyone else’s job too.”

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to glockmail again.

 

[glockmail]

[1]You might want to reconsider that. [2] Lots of people have the misguided view that they can do law as well as lawyers. [3] You wouldn't pull your own teeth or diagnose your own medical problems, would you?

[4] Besides, I've read your comments on law. They're shown a distinct lack of understanding mixed with an arrogance that's pretty funny to watch. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the legislature has any Constitutional right to tell the Courts to take a hike.
….

1. No. I’ll let you trust the experts while your pipes are bursting, the IRS is fining you, you’re insuring your neighbor’s house, and your ice maker’s empty.
2. There are more misguided lawyers who lack common sense and morality.
3. Surely you’re not attempting to elevate your profession to the status of the medical field. You able to get that swelled head through a doorpost?
4. I’m still waiting for you to respond to those specific posts with a semblance of common sense.

 

[dilloduck]

You might want to reconsider that. Lots of people have the misguided view that they can do law as well as lawyers. You wouldn't pull your own teeth or diagnose your own medical problems, would you?

Besides, I've read your comments on law. They're shown a distinct lack of understanding mixed with an arrogance that's pretty funny to watch. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the legislature has any Constitutional right to tell the Courts to take a hike.

Now... Acorn... his observations are interesting and certainly borne out by at least part of the judiciary, like Antonin Scalia, if not agreed with by most jurists.

You able to get that swelled head through a doorpost?

When the common man needs an intermediary to defend his rights, something is wrong-very wrong.

 

[KarlMarx]

The Federal government is allowed to do anything "necessary and proper". This is pretty well-settled law. And no problem with asking questions, but the Constitition has to be viewed as a whole and each section has to be read in conjunction with every other.

Interesting though that your only objections seem to be about the things that help people. But there ya go.

I could ask the same question to you regarding NSA wiretaps of agents of foreign powers, but then....

It seems that liberals don't trust the Executive Branch, whereas conservatives suspect the other two branches of government. I think that's a fair assessment.

BTW... Nancy Pelosi are certain to keep an eye on Dubya, examining every nook and cranny... but just who keeps an eye on Congress and the judiciary? Let me guess, they both are self policing bodies, is that right?