The Tenth Ammendment Problem

[Gunny]

You might want to reconsider that. Lots of people have the misguided view that they can do law as well as lawyers.

Most lawyers have the misguided view that no one can understand the law but them.

 

[dilloduck]

Most lawyers have the misguided view that no one can understand the law but them.

WOW--that was very Manu-esque !!!!! :thumbs_up:

 

[Gunny]

WOW--that was very Manu-esque !!!!! :thumbs_up:

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

I think we distrust all three personally. But we also keep oursleves up with current events so we know which branches are doing the most damage to society.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Having associated with a number of lawyers and survived law school i can tell you that a rock could do as well as a number of lawyers and soon to be lawyers i've met. a very scary prospect if you think about it.

And when you deal with Constitutional law specifically, more than just lawyers study it. I wouldnt assume people are stupid just because they arent lawyers.

 

[Hobbit]

Lots of people have the misguided view that they can do law as well as lawyers.

And lawyers believe this so much that they have effectively made it illegal for anyone but lawyers to do legal work. The whole thing's a racket. No matter your credentials, you can be arrested for doing legal work, for pay, without a bar association membership, even if your client knows this. The whole business is one big racket, ranking right up there with those diamond barons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In my experience with lawyers reciting Constitutional issues, I've noticed that they talk a lot about how the Const is interpreted, what courts have said about it in the past, what they'll probably say about it in the future, how they are likely to rule on a given issue, etc.

In other words, they don't talk about the Constitution. They talk about what other people say about the Constitution.

And there's a big difference.

This 10th amendment issue is a good example. Most arguments we have heard here, have to do with how we can infer that the 10th does NOT say the Fed can't do anything the Constitution doesn't say it can. When I and others point out that the 10th does in fact say exactly that, and that what it says supersedes others' attempts to get around it, it's like talking to a wall. Opponents keep right on talking about ways to get around it, as though they hadn't heard themselves being refuted.

And of course, no one EVER replies, "No, Acorn, the language of the 10th amendment DOES permit the Fed govt to do things such as running a retirement-benefit program that isn't listed anywhere in the Constitution; and here's the part of the 10th that says that and here's why it means that".

Because, of course, the 10th simply says "If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Fed can't do it, but the States and the People still can."; and any attempt to state otherwise is like saying 2+2=17. It just isn't so, by the very nature of the thing. And the opponents know it. So rather than acknowledge what's true, they decide to lie instead, and pretend some other part of the Const overrides the 10th amendment when it doesn't.

It's awfully tough to be a liberal. Not only do you have to ignore half the Constitution, you have to persuade everyone else to ignore it too. You may have a willingness to suspend rational belief, but a distressing number of people, especially conservatives, don't share that willingness. And they cause you no end of trouble by saying, "Look what the law itself says."

My sympathies.

 

[glockmail]

.....

In other words, they don't talk about the Constitution. They talk about what other people say about the Constitution.

.....

Exactly. Way too much emphasis on precedent. Rulings based on precedent Then a ruling based on a ruling based on precedent. And so on. Reminds me of the game we played as kids: Telephone. The kid at the end hears something that is meaningless compared with the original. And that is the essence of the game that liberal lawyers and jurists like to play.

Back to you, Jillie.:shade:

 

[Gunny]

Exactly. Way too much emphasis on precedent. Rulings based on precedent Then a ruling based on a ruling based on precedent. And so on. Reminds me of the game we played as kids: Telephone. The kid at the end hears something that is meaningless compared with the original. And that is the essence of the game that liberal lawyers and jurists like to play.

Back to you, Jillie.:shade:

While a I don't agree with it, when and if a judicial precedent is set, it is the rule of law unless overturned by a higher court.

I completely agree with Little Acorn's post; however, that does not change the fact in any way that the law we actually live by is more likely than not, a judicial ruling rather than an actual Constitutional law.

Don't look for it to change anytime soon.

 

[Annie]

While a I don't agree with it, when and if a judicial precedent is set, it is the rule of law unless overturned by a higher court.

I completely agree with Little Acorn's post; however, that does not change the fact in any way that the law we actually live by is more likely than not, a judicial ruling rather than an actual Constitutional law.

Don't look for it to change anytime soon.

What's been done with the 9th is worse than the 10th, though they've been put together. If you want some details, click on the icon upper left:


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=789384

 

[glockmail]

While a I don't agree with it, when and if a judicial precedent is set, it is the rule of law unless overturned by a higher court.

.....

Maybe I wasn't clear. The way it appears now is that the higher court uses the precendent set by the lower one. Of course, it would be nice for our resident expert to set me straight.