Was the Constitution designed to make the states strong?

[The T]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

Agreed. It tells the PEOPLE that the Politcal Class that are HIRED by the people don't care a WIT of the people that hired them.

And summarily/ I think DC, and even State/cals ought to be FIRED summarily, that haven't Listened to the people.

For it IS the people that have ultimate power.

And to you polticos/surrogates that read this? Don't push us to another revolution that created this Republic to accentuate the point. For if you DO? WE WILL.

FAIR WARNING.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...

"The idea that private industry can always do something better than the government is false and sad and divisive," "People should know better." - so said a very brilliant and no nonsense man.

Is he a socialist or a leftie?

---

The right is always trying to own the idea that they and their masters in private industry are the only ones who can do things --well right. Myth vs reality. Sorta like the idea that Ronald Reagan was a conservative with principles.

Wait so we can only either trust corporations or trust government?

Oh we are SOOOOOOO screwed if thats the case.

Personally I like the constitution which was designed to keep the federal government weak and the local governments strong...in effect giving communities direct access to those that govern them and the laws/rules that will be used. Over the last few decades we have increasingly nationalized government power instead of keeping it localized, this is the true cause of the problems we see.


The federal government is not, from its track record, looking out for the people
The corporations, from their track record, are not looking out for the people.

Its the people that look out for themselves, as our founders knew governments and companies are not the answer.

What do you think?

The Constitution is a balancing act, between the original 13 States that feared a powerful central Government and the need for a real central Government, The Articles of Confederation did not work. However the States were not going to just give up their inherent power and control.

The Constitution is meant to create a LIMITED Federal Government with only specific powers granted by the States via the people. However with in the confines of the power the Federal Government does have, it is supreme.

 

[jillian]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...

"The idea that private industry can always do something better than the government is false and sad and divisive," "People should know better." - so said a very brilliant and no nonsense man.

Is he a socialist or a leftie?

---

The right is always trying to own the idea that they and their masters in private industry are the only ones who can do things --well right. Myth vs reality. Sorta like the idea that Ronald Reagan was a conservative with principles.

Wait so we can only either trust corporations or trust government?

Oh we are SOOOOOOO screwed if thats the case.

Personally I like the constitution which was designed to keep the federal government weak and the local governments strong...in effect giving communities direct access to those that govern them and the laws/rules that will be used. Over the last few decades we have increasingly nationalized government power instead of keeping it localized, this is the true cause of the problems we see.


The federal government is not, from its track record, looking out for the people
The corporations, from their track record, are not looking out for the people.

Its the people that look out for themselves, as our founders knew governments and companies are not the answer.

What do you think?

I think the founders iived in an agrarian society... their goal was to protect landed gentry...

I think they didn't even conceptualize companies... and the societal problems that arose after the industrial revolution weren't on their radar.

and if the states were intended to be strong, there wouldn't have been a move to the constitution and away from the articles of confederation...

 

[RadiomanATL]

cowardice is highly underrated. it is an American tradition. just look at the facts of life. Was Nixon and Reagan cowards? Were not Cheney and the other chickenhawks cowards?

Well, at least you enjoy being a coward.

Carry on being a sniveling whiner then.

listen you piece of shit. you hear that sound? it is the sound of hot air spitting out of your vapid mind.

lets disect the above post...

cowardly...check
sniveling...check
whining....check

par for the course. carry on.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

Its also the least understood of any. It talks about powers not listed or defined by the Constitution and deposits them in the relm of two seperate entities, the States and Citizens.

Lets take for example the creation of the NSA, CIA, and DHS. The Constitution specifically vests in the Executive the power of "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and additionally the power to "Commission all the Officers of the United States." However, does that authorize the President to command intelligence agencies or domestic security agencies?

The traditional argument is that yes, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy he'd certainly have control of intelligence operations ran out of the Army and/or the Navy, and with the power to Commission Officers he can control and install the leadership for such organizations. However, an independent intelligence or security agency isn't provided for in the Constitution explicitly. Doesn't the 10th ammendment mean that unless the CIA, NSA, and FBI are housed under the auspices of the Army and Navy that formation and organization of such entities is reserved for the independent states?

That's clearly ridiculous (or is thought to be by most legal experts), so the argument must mean that control of the NSA, FBI, and CIA is a natural outgrowth of the Commander and Chief and Head of the Executive roles of the Presidency, so it seems to be the prevailing opinion that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply to certain non-enumerated powers.

That brings up what non-enumerated powers are and are not covered by the 10th Ammendment, and that's a doozy.

 

[Polk]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...

"The idea that private industry can always do something better than the government is false and sad and divisive," "People should know better." - so said a very brilliant and no nonsense man.

Is he a socialist or a leftie?

---

The right is always trying to own the idea that they and their masters in private industry are the only ones who can do things --well right. Myth vs reality. Sorta like the idea that Ronald Reagan was a conservative with principles.

Wait so we can only either trust corporations or trust government?

Oh we are SOOOOOOO screwed if thats the case.

Personally I like the constitution which was designed to keep the federal government weak and the local governments strong...in effect giving communities direct access to those that govern them and the laws/rules that will be used. Over the last few decades we have increasingly nationalized government power instead of keeping it localized, this is the true cause of the problems we see.


The federal government is not, from its track record, looking out for the people
The corporations, from their track record, are not looking out for the people.

Its the people that look out for themselves, as our founders knew governments and companies are not the answer.

What do you think?

I think it's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, why have the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation would have served the same purpose.

 

[Polk]

The Constitution was designed to make the states strong? So were the states weak before hand?

You're simply playing with words now. The Constitution was designed to keep the states strong.

NOpe, NOT playing with words. Not at all.


What existed before the Constitution? Why was there a need to design constitution in the first place?

Before the Constitution, the federal government was complete a servant of the states. The Constitution was necessary because that structure had a ton of problems.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...

Wait so we can only either trust corporations or trust government?

Oh we are SOOOOOOO screwed if thats the case.

Personally I like the constitution which was designed to keep the federal government weak and the local governments strong...in effect giving communities direct access to those that govern them and the laws/rules that will be used. Over the last few decades we have increasingly nationalized government power instead of keeping it localized, this is the true cause of the problems we see.


The federal government is not, from its track record, looking out for the people
The corporations, from their track record, are not looking out for the people.

Its the people that look out for themselves, as our founders knew governments and companies are not the answer.

What do you think?

I think it's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, why have the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation would have served the same purpose.

Like RetiredGySgt just said

The Constitution is meant to create a LIMITED Federal Government with only specific powers granted by the States via the people. However with in the confines of the power the Federal Government does have, it is supreme.

The fact is the federal govt has grabbed a LOT of power over the last few decades and in more recent years they have grabbed even more.

 

[The T]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...



What do you think?

I think it's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, why have the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation would have served the same purpose.

Like RetiredGySgt just said

The Constitution is meant to create a LIMITED Federal Government with only specific powers granted by the States via the people. However with in the confines of the power the Federal Government does have, it is supreme.

The fact is the federal govt has grabbed a LOT of power over the last few decades and in more recent years they have grabbed even more.

BRAVO!

The Constitution Of the United States was designed so that the PEOPLE had the ultimate say-so in what the Government was doing, and it was an effort by the Founders for the people to have the LAST WORD.

Of course you've heard the phrase that "All Politics is LOCAL"?

I know and understand that my pronouncement puts alot of you Liberal Statists into a whirrling durbish...but it is LAW. You may IGNORE the tenth all you like...but also take the words of one of the Founders to Heart...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Yeah...Your favourite JEFFERSON which MANY of you Liberal IDIOTS like to quote when it comes to "Separation Of CHURCH, and STATE" (Which doesn't exist in your context...and has been perverted much like everything you statists touch...)!

The 'Blood of Tyrants" Remark? Why is it you don't heed that?

We are CLOSE to it...for WE are in a soft Tyranny NOW.

It means what it says, and it goes right UP the chain even to the "District Of Criminals", and precisely WHY the 10th Amendment was included.

These people that infest DC didn't get there on their OWN.

The PEOPLE put them there, and these politicians have to YIELD to that ultimate authority.

The FED Must yeild to that authority, lest the people take it out upon them by whatever means when the People's Liberty is threatened, much as it is NOW.

______________

Bottom Line as to the OP?

Not only was it to make the STATES strong...but more of import to The PEOPLE that give their CONSENT in the first place.

HEED You office holders, and FUTURE wannabes...The people are PISSED. It isn't a THREAT...It's a PROMISE.

 

[lawbuff]

The PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights, makes it quite clear, at least to me, that the Constitution was ratified to create a limited federal government:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The feds have gone way beyond the bounds of thier apparant authority, IMO.

This is why states are turning more to thier individual constitutions to give more protections to the people.

Example. In Atwater v. Lago Vista, the SC ruled it does NOT offend the 4th AM if a full custodial arrest is effected for a crime punishable ONLY by a fine. I totally disagreed with this decision.

My state constitution affords greater protection and a person can NOT be arrested for such, unless they refuse to sign the citation or can not care for themselves, etc.

 

[Dante]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

 

[Dante]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

Agreed. It tells the PEOPLE that the Politcal Class that are HIRED by the people don't care a WIT of the people that hired them.

And summarily/ I think DC, and even State/cals ought to be FIRED summarily, that haven't Listened to the people.

For it IS the people that have ultimate power.

And to you polticos/surrogates that read this? Don't push us to another revolution that created this Republic to accentuate the point. For if you DO? WE WILL.

FAIR WARNING.

You can fire a pol anytime. Just get them unelected. Easy. Try running for office instead of running your mouth/.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

We don't have a democracy.

 

[Dante]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...



What do you think?

I think it's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, why have the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation would have served the same purpose.

Like RetiredGySgt just said

The Constitution is meant to create a LIMITED Federal Government with only specific powers granted by the States via the people. However with in the confines of the power the Federal Government does have, it is supreme.

The fact is the federal govt has grabbed a LOT of power over the last few decades and in more recent years they have grabbed even more.

the balance of powers will always shift. so what?

 

[Dante]

The PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights, makes it quite clear, at least to me, that the Constitution was ratified to create a limited federal government:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The feds have gone way beyond the bounds of thier apparant authority, IMO.

This is why states are turning more to thier individual constitutions to give more protections to the people.

Example. In Atwater v. Lago Vista, the SC ruled it does NOT offend the 4th AM if a full custodial arrest is effected for a crime punishable ONLY by a fine. I totally disagreed with this decision.

My state constitution affords greater protection and a person can NOT be arrested for such, unless they refuse to sign the citation or can not care for themselves, etc.

interesting opinion....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

We don't have a democracy.

But we do have a Constitutional Republic. Or is it now just a Bannana republic since we have people like DevNell and Obama that like to throw the constitution out the winodw.

 

[Dante]

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. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

We don't have a democracy.

We do too. We have a form of democracy. Stop playing at or (gawd forbid) showing how stupid you are.

 

[Dante]

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

We don't have a democracy.

But we do have a Constitutional Republic. Or is it now just a Bannana republic since we have people like DevNell and Obama that like to throw the constitution out the winodw.

We have a democratic form of government. Of course it is a republic. But just because we temper what the majority can do...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

really? I guess your opinion is not shared by most people. Sucks, but democracy rules.

We don't have a democracy.

We do too. We have a form of democracy. Stop playing at or (gawd forbid) showing how stupid you are.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I don't think the founders thought the Republic they created was a democracy.

 

[Dante]

We don't have a democracy.

We do too. We have a form of democracy. Stop playing at or (gawd forbid) showing how stupid you are.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I don't think the founders thought the Republic they created was a democracy.

They knew they were creating a democratic form of government. We are not a Democracy in the narrow sense of the word, but quibbling over this is silly if all sides know we are a Republic.

gott arun

school's closing down

ltr

d.