Understanding the Tenth Amendment

[HikerGuy83]

SCOTUS decides what is constitutional

Yes and no.

The constitution came before the SCOTUS. It is the reason the SCOTUS exists.

It has a text which is pretty easy to understand.

SCOTUS rules (sometimes horribly) on it's application.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The 10th is clear: If a "power" is not granted to the Feds in the Constitution, then it is reserved to the States and/or the private sector.

Where in Article I (or elsewhere) is the "power" given to Congress to provide FOOD, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE, or EDUCATION to the masses?

I'll wait.

The argument is basic, straightforward, and simple to understand.

But since government is seen as the "source of a lot of goodies", some try to twist and bend things to fit what they want.

Please keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government...or it did until SCOTUS (without just cause) incorporated the bill of rights. Something we need to reverse.

 

[HikerGuy83]

A balanced budget means less government service

A balanced FEDERAL BUDGET means less FEDERAL GOVERNMENT service.

People should be clear that they can have up to five layers of government in their lives.....

Federal
State
County
Municiple
HOA

 

[HikerGuy83]

The 10th is clear: If a "power" is not granted to the Feds in the Constitution, then it is reserved to the States and/or the private sector.

Where in Article I (or elsewhere) is the "power" given to Congress to provide FOOD, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE, or EDUCATION to the masses?

I'll wait.

You will notice that the typical left wing idiots are not jumping into this one.

Why should they. They don't see the Constitution as being relevant. All they care about is "settled case law"....until it isn't settled.

The biggest structural wound to the Constitution is the 17th amendment. It should be repealed. If it won't be repealed, there should be a state driven oversight committee that fights with the federal government when the states overstep their bounds. We should just dissolve the senate and let this oversight committee do the job they were supposed to do at the start.

And they should bring any senator home who isn't following the Constitution and beat them black and blue.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Essentially, the story of our Constitution goes like this: After the Declaration of Independence, there were thirteen colonies that transitioned to mini-COUNTRIES (a "State" is a country, not a subdivision of a country) that generally agreed that they needed to combine in some way, but disagreed about how.

The ultimate deal was that they would centralize the government functions where it made sense to do them collectively, but retain all other government functions for themselves. The listing of the functions that were ceded to the new central government are listed in Article I, Section 8...the "powers" of Congress.

That's Europe, but Brussels kept pushing for more integration, hence Brexit.

So would the US States dissolve their governments and constitutions, and hand the keys over to the White House? Lefties in the UK would say you should, they're trying to do it here.

 

[PeterPilot]

The argument is basic, straightforward, and simple to understand.

But since government is seen as the "source of a lot of goodies", some try to twist and bend things to fit what they want.

Please keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government...or it did until SCOTUS (without just cause) incorporated the bill of rights. Something we need to reverse.

The Congress through the 14th Amendment incorporated the BOR, not SCOTUS. I think incorporating the rights enumerated (and implied in the Ninth) is a good thing.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Congress through the 14th Amendment incorporated the BOR, not SCOTUS. I think incorporating the rights enumerated (and implied in the Ninth) is a good thing.

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court, through a string of cases, found that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth amendment included applying parts of the Bill of Rights to States (referred to as incorporation). A lot of contention surrounds whether the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate any substantive rights, with opinions from Supreme Court justices ranging from complete to no incorporation ( see substantive due process ). Rather than find that the Due Process clause incorporates all of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court supported selectively incorporating rights that the Court finds as essential to due process. Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court incorporated certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.

***********

Keep in mind that not all of the BOR are incorporated.

Hence the term Selective Incorporation.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I think incorporating the rights enumerated (and implied in the Ninth) is a good thing.

I could not disagree more.

 

[PeterPilot]

I could not disagree more.

Why do you think the rights guaranteed in the BOR should be violated by the states?

 

[PeterPilot]

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court, through a string of cases, found that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth amendment included applying parts of the Bill of Rights to States (referred to as incorporation). A lot of contention surrounds whether the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate any substantive rights, with opinions from Supreme Court justices ranging from complete to no incorporation ( see substantive due process ). Rather than find that the Due Process clause incorporates all of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court supported selectively incorporating rights that the Court finds as essential to due process. Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court incorporated certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.

***********

Keep in mind that not all of the BOR are incorporated.

Hence the term Selective Incorporation.

Is this an argument to repeal the Ninth Amendment?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why do you think the rights guaranteed in the BOR should be violated by the states?

The Constitution only applies to the federal government and was purposely written in a way that would allow the states maximum lattitude in all matters not attached to the federal government.

What I think regarding the BOR's does not matter...

But, pray tell, how are you going to incorporate the 10th Amendment.

The SCOTUS should not be telling states they can't pray in schools. Besides being a direct violation of the 1st.....it is excatly what I am talking about.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Is this an argument to repeal the Ninth Amendment?

Not that I know.

It is simply Cornell telling you that you are wrong in your statement regarding incorporation.

It was SCOTUS rulings. Which, from my recollection did not come until the 1920's when the 14th was passed in 1865.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Always enjoyed this one:

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell

SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection...

www.lewrockwell.com

But somewhere along the way, the true history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption has disappeared down a memory hole. When one reviews that history, it becomes clear why Pilon and Shankman prefer to discuss the amendment in the abstract, antiseptic terms of social contract theory. An “immaculate conception” account of ratification suits their argument better: the real story’s a little too dirty for the kids.

We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V’s requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article’s provision that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.”

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Wisdom Of Us Ninth For Traitors Against Enumerate Equal Protection "

* Tenth Amendment Dumbfounded Dobbs Sedition *

The Constitution only applies to the federal government and was purposely written in a way that would allow the states maximum lattitude in all matters not attached to the federal government.

In us 14th there is an enumerated rite for equal protection , which states do not have the power to abrogate , which requires live birth for equal protection with a us citizen , as live birth is the only non incidental requirement to become a citizen of a us state or a citizen of us federate .


* First Step Towards Paving Sectarian Ways To Hell *

The SCOTUS should not be telling states they can't pray in schools. Besides being a direct violation of the 1st.....it is excatly what I am talking about.

As it is the knights of columbus want parochial schools funded through private vouchers and scotus has already ruled that state of maine cannot exclude madrassa from voucher collection , and parliamentary rules prevented sanctimonious bureaucrats from adding it to the big bloated bill .

So who is supposed to be leading compulsory prey oars where religion is established in schools ?

To avoid establishment of religion , a religious exception does not require tax payments and likewise does not receive tax funds .

 

[PeterPilot]

Not that I know.

It is simply Cornell telling you that you are wrong in your statement regarding incorporation.

It was SCOTUS rulings. Which, from my recollection did not come until the 1920's when the 14th was passed in 1865.

If it's not an argument to repeal the Ninth, then how do you reconcile the existence of the Ninth? If the states can ignore constitutional and natural rights, what good is the union?

 

[HikerGuy83]

If it's not an argument to repeal the Ninth, then how do you reconcile the existence of the Ninth? If the states can ignore constitutional and natural rights, what good is the union?

I don't have to reconcile anything.

Constitutional rights are protections against the federal government.

States understand that. That is why 44 or 45 have the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their state constitutions.

The ninth is not, at all specific, and the only way to recognize those rights, as a country is through the amendment process.

 

[HikerGuy83]

In us 14th there is an enumerated rite for equal protection , which states do not have the power to abrogate , which requires live birth for equal protection with a us citizen , as live birth is the only non incidental requirement to become a citizen of a us state or a citizen of us federate .

I would agree, that in matters of citizenship, it is fully with the federal government.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So who is supposed to be leading compulsory prey oars where religion is established in schools ?

That is up to the states (and by extension) and the local schools to decide.

People can sue under the state constitution.

To avoid establishment of religion , a religious exception does not require tax payments and likewise does not receive tax funds .

I have no idea what you are saying.

To avoid establishment of religion by ???? Congress ???

That is the end of the discussion. Congress should not be doing that. Period.

I have no idea what the rest of your sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[HikerGuy83]

If it's not an argument to repeal the Ninth, then how do you reconcile the existence of the Ninth? If the states can ignore constitutional and natural rights, what good is the union?

You seem really hung up on the ninth amendment.

The amendment simply makes it clear that Congress can't go beyond enumerated rights and deny other rights to people. It says nothing about the states being required to do the same.

 

[HikerGuy83]

If the states can ignore constitutional and natural rights, what good is the union?

The only way to realize natural rights is through the amendment process.

As for the good of the union....one state might ignore a right.....you are not required to live there.