The Tenth Amendment

[ConHog]

Yes, when the effects of commerce, pollution, become interstate.



Who disagrees with that? The problem is that reading the law is not plainly clear. Because it doesn't say "EPA" does not mean the EPA is unconstitutional.

Rev plainly disagrees. He's flat out stated he believes that there should be an Amendment passed for every little thing. Even though the founding fathers themselves did things which were not PLAINLY written in the COTUS - IE sending Marines to Tripoli to beat a little pirate ass.

[fj1200]

Rev plainly disagrees. He's flat out stated he believes that there should be an Amendment passed for every little thing. Even though the founding fathers themselves did things which were not PLAINLY written in the COTUS - IE sending Marines to Tripoli to beat a little pirate ass.

Did you notice my edit about the 17th? Genius; the States have already agreed to it...

[ConHog]

Did you notice my edit about the 17th? Genius; the States have already agreed to it...

Huh?

[fj1200]

Huh?

The representatives of the States, the Senators, have already given authority.

[ConHog]

The representatives of the States, the Senators, have already given authority.

My huh was more of the do you think im disagreeing with you nature

[fj1200]

My huh was more of the do you think im disagreeing with you nature

Gotcha, no I didn't think that.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm not sure how many of the posts in this thread are merely trolling (saying silly or clearly false things for the purpose of sparking a reaction) and how many are honestly meant.

As you know, the Constitution was originally passed with no amendments at all. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. etc., were nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

And that was the beauty of it: Many of the people who wrote it, maintained that it was unnecessary to mention those things. The Constitution took a group of independent, sovereign states that held all powers, and took certain powers away from those states to turn them over to a central government. And that was ALL the Constitution did.

If a power wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that meant the Fed govt didn't have that power, and was FORBIDDEN to exercise it. That was the founding philosophy of the Constitution: It turned certain powers over to the Fed Govt... AND NO OTHERS.

And among the powers not listed in the new Constitution, were the power to restrict speech, the power to force or restrict religion, the power to restrict weapons, etc. So the Fed govt was forbidden to do any of those things, since it was given no powers to do them.

But some of the Framers were concerned that rights would be ignored or disparaged by various slick lawyers. They wanted to include a list of "the most important rights" that would be held inviolate. And some of the states said they would only ratify the new Constitution if they were promised that a bill of rights would be offered for ratification too. So Congress quickly passed a set of ten amendments, eight of which were quickly ratified; and then added two more which were also as quickly ratified.

Of the last two, one of them reaffirmed the basic philosophy that any power not specifically turned over to the Fed by the Constitution, remained a power of the states and the people. It became the 10th amendment. It said essentially, that if the Constitution didn't say it, the Federal Govt can't do it; but the States and the People still can if they want.

The other was in response to the fear of slick lawyers who might try to claim that since the right to peaceably assemble was protected under the Constitution but the right to ride horses was not, this meant that the people didn't have the right to ride horses. So another amendment was included, this time about the rights of the people. It said that just because a certain right wasn't explicitly mentioned, that did NOT mean that the people didn't still have that right. It became the 9th amendment.

Between them, the 9th and 10th are known as the "bookend amendments". The 9th deals with the rights of the people, and the 10th deals with the powers of government.

The 9th says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution;
the 10th says that the powers of government ARE limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

I believe that takes care of the question of whether the power of the Fed Govt was "really" intended to be 100% limited to only the powers listed in the Constitution.

Now, the next question: Have we obeyed the Constitution's founding philosophy?

The answer's easy, of course: not hardly.

Question after that: SHOULD we obey the Constitution's founding philosophy?

Depending on whether you're asking a big-govt advocate or a conservative, you'll get quite different answers. The question's been asked daily for roughly a hundred years, and no doubt will be for the forseeable future.

But if you want to ask, "What is constitutional?".... remember that you're not asking, "What sounds like the things *I* want the Federal government to be doing?" That's a completely different question.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure how many of the posts in this thread are merely trolling (saying silly or clearly false things for the purpose of sparking a reaction) and how many are honestly meant.

As you know, the Constitution was originally passed with no amendments at all. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. etc., were nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

And that was the beauty of it: Many of the people who wrote it, maintained that it was unnecessary to mention those things. The Constitution took a group of independent, sovereign states that held all powers, and took certain powers away from those states to turn them over to a central government. And that was ALL the Constitution did.

If a power wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that meant the Fed govt didn't have that power, and was FORBIDDEN to exercise it. That was the founding philosophy of the Constitution: It turned certain powers over to the Fed Govt... AND NO OTHERS.

And among the powers not listed in the new Constitution, were the power to restrict speech, the power to force or restrict religion, the power to restrict weapons, etc. So the Fed govt was forbidden to do any of those things, since it was given no powers to do them.

But some of the Framers were concerned that rights would be ignored or disparaged by various slick lawyers. They wanted to include a list of "the most important rights" that would be held inviolate. And some of the states said they would only ratify the new Constitution if they were promised that a bill of rights would be offered for ratification too. So Congress quickly passed a set of ten amendments, eight of which were quickly ratified; and then added two more which were also as quickly ratified.

Of the last two, one of them reaffirmed the basic philosophy that any power not specifically turned over to the Fed by the Constitution, remained a power of the states and the people. It became the 10th amendment. It said essentially, that if the Constitution didn't say it, the Federal Govt can't do it; but the States and the People still can if they want.

The other was in response to the fear of slick lawyers who might try to claim that since the right to peaceably assemble was protected under the Constitution but the right to ride horses was not, this meant that the people didn't have the right to ride horses. So another amendment was included, this time about the rights of the people. It said that just because a certain right wasn't explicitly mentioned, that did NOT mean that the people didn't still have that right. It became the 9th amendment.

Between them, the 9th and 10th are known as the "bookend amendments". The 9th deals with the rights of the people, and the 10th deals with the powers of government.

The 9th says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution;
the 10th says that the powers of government ARE limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

I believe that takes care of the question of whether the power of the Fed Govt was "really" intended to be 100% limited to only the powers listed in the Constitution.

Now, the next question: Have we obeyed the Constitution's founding philosophy?

The answer's easy, of course: not hardly.

Question after that: SHOULD we obey the Constitution's founding philosophy?

Depending on whether you're asking a big-govt advocate or a conservative, you'll get quite different answers. The question's been asked daily for roughly a hundred years, and no doubt will be for the forseeable future.

But if you want to ask, "What is constitutional?".... remember that you're not asking, "What sounds like the things *I* want the Federal government to be doing?" That's a completely different question.

that's well said.

[revelarts]

some quotes that go to the "final authority" of the SCOTUS and Constitution:


The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. –
Potter Stewart (1915-1985), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham, 1967


The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. –
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. –
Justice William O. Douglas

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. – Justice William O. Douglas

Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. –
Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934


The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it. –
Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York; 1939