# The Abandoned Child: The 10th Amendment



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 20, 2015)

*"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."*

The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself.  Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional  misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.

The amendment was never amended or repealed, ergo it is still the law of the land.

Considering that, and the overall incompetence of the current federal government, most particularly the Executive Branch, should the state governors simply reassert their own powers, refuse loudly and publicly to comply with the nonsense issued by the federal government, and gradually box the feds back into their original limited role?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 20, 2015)

Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.

I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 20, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.
> 
> I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.


No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.


----------



## dblack (Jun 20, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Interesting. I'd have thought the Left here would have jumped upon this.
> 
> I guess they, with unexpected cognizance, agree with me.



Guess again.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 20, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.



So, wherein lies my ignorance on the issue?

Enthrall us.


----------



## dblack (Jun 20, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > No, they just correctly recognize your comprehensive ignorance of the issue and appropriately decided not the waste their time.
> ...



Congress voted to ignore the 10th. The Court let them. Clayton refers to this as "case law".


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 21, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> *"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."*
> 
> The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself.  Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional  misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.
> 
> ...



Do you have something specific in mind?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > *"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."*
> ...



"Just Say No."


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 21, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> *"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."*
> 
> The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself.  Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional  misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.
> 
> ...


Sorry but the 14th usurps the 10th.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > *"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."*
> ...



Please expound.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 21, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


...*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 of the laws.*

What part do you want to talk about?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Well, let's talk about that part.  How does that support, or even have anything to do with your claim that the 14th usurps the 10th?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 21, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Prior to the 14th the fed could not send money to the states for the purpose of depriving life, liberty, and property with due process of law.  Prior to the 14th the states could deny equal protection of the laws to any person within it's jurisdiction.   Prior to the 14th the states ruled citizens independently.  After.. they became willing partners with the feds in cases where our rights can be taken from us indiscriminately... and they lost all power to discriminate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 21, 2015)

Since the advent of the Republic it was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution and Federal laws were the supreme law of the land, where the Tenth Amendment in no way mitigates that fact:

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding_. US Constitution Article VI, Section 2

_McCulloch v. Maryland:_

“The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.”

McCulloch v. Maryland Case Brief Summary

_US v. Darby_:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
[…]
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

_Cooper v. Aaron_:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states which are completely devoid of the 'authority' to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts.

The Tenth Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the states to 'nullify' or 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of Federal Courts, the notion that the Amendment 'empowers' the states to do so is unfounded ignorant idiocy.

Consequently, as a fact of Constitutional law, the OP is wrong.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



This is most interesting study you're proffering, because this discussion does not concern individual rights or discrimination or anything of the like, but rather the limits of the authority of the federal government as limited by the 10th Amendment, which remains in force and therefore, the law of the land.

The *only* amendment overturned by another was the 18th, by the 21st.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Since the advent of the Republic it was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution and Federal laws were the supreme law of the land, where the Tenth Amendment in no way mitigates that fact:
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding_. US Constitution Article VI, Section 2
> 
> ...



The courts cannot nullify amendments.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 
An ad campaign is a violation of the 10th?   I'm not following that.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Dat's funny.  He asked for specifics.

I suggested non-compliance.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 
So you can't specify where they is actually happening?  Then why mention it?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> So you can't specify where they is actually happening?  Then why mention it?



You seem to be communicating from a different planet.  They is WHAT happening?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > So you can't specify where they is actually happening?  Then why mention it?
> ...


 
My error.  I meant where this is happening.  Can you tell us specifically what you are talking about, or are you just generally saying we need to keep the 10th amendment in mind?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



In a nutshell -

Judicial Revision An assumption of powers never meant to be granted Tenth Amendment Center


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 
So, nothing specific.  All is good then.  Thanks for the heads up.  We'll be sure to be on the watch in case this should ever happen.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


The bill of rights... is a list of *declaratory* and restrictive *clauses*.  While the main focus is on the restrictive clauses that thus bind the federal government...  the 10th is a declaratory clause.

Note how the 14th amendment neutered the declaration in the 10th.  Note how there are two ways to change earlier amendments through further amendments, the first way is to provide clarifications and further amendments, such as how the 14th worked.  The second way is to overturn one completely.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that before the 14th.. and to a great extent the 16th and 17th amendments.  The states had the ability to "box" the feds.  Now the constitution is upside down with the states boxed in by the feds.  The states are now relegated to one of paupers that fund the other states... or willing partners in the trashing of this country.  The 10th amendment has no teeth any longer.  The feds can take all of the income out of a state... and do with it as the feds see fit (see 16th amendment).  The states can do nothing about it... (see 14th amendment and 17th amendment with the people's votes running the senate not senators that report to the states).


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Note how there are two ways to change earlier amendments through further amendments, the first way is to provide clarifications and further amendments



A clarification cannot undo the original intent.



RKMBrown said:


> Now the constitution is upside down with the states boxed in by the feds.



In that we agree.



RKMBrown said:


> The feds can take all of the income out of a state



At the risk of insurrection, I suppose.



RKMBrown said:


> The states can do nothing about it.



That is a silly statement.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> So, nothing specific.  All is good then.  Thanks for the heads up.  We'll be sure to be on the watch in case this should ever happen.



There are several specifics, an example being the federal government cannot dictate the moral structure within a state against 1st's free expression clause.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Note how there are two ways to change earlier amendments through further amendments, the first way is to provide clarifications and further amendments
> ...


A clarification can completely neuter the original intent. See 17th amendment with the states no longer having a voice at all in DC.  See 16th amendment with the feds being able to take the income away from a state and send it to other states.  Together with the 14th, the original intent of the entire Constitution is now completely upside down, with the growth and power of the Federal Government to continue completely unabated.  Look at these h1b visas.. ROFL they are bringing in cheap labor to replace professional American STEM workers and the people and states have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY WHATSOEVER ABOUT IT.

For example, Obamacare... sign up and receive the rewards that your tax payer's are forced to fun anyway or let the citizens of your state get completely screwed over by being forced to fund health care for other states with their income.

Insurrection? Have you not noticed every federal agency arming itself to the teeth?  Internment camps going up all around the country?  Tens of millions of "coffins" being prepped? The feds are insuring that any insurrection would be easily quelled.

Not silly, Fed law is supreme in all matters, whether the laws are reasonable, constitutional, or not... see fed success at stopping Arizonans from protecting themselves.  The Fed going so far at to join a law suit with mexico against Arizonans.

You want to fix this country... you're gonna have to start in DC they own all the cards.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Ummmm ... okay, if you say so.  We are obviously live in different dimensions.

As to quelling a major insurrection - something we definitely don't want here - the numbers don't favor the feds.  The approximate total of all military personnel is about 2,500,000.  The total number of armed citizens is over 100,000,000, perhaps well over, and how many with military training is anyone's guess.  Now even assuming that all federal forces would feel free to fire upon Americans - an unlikely event considering the politics of our day - and also assuming that say oh, half of armed citizens stayed out of the fray, the numbers are overwhelming.

Even the Chinese have recognized that America could never be defeated by invasion.  We have the largest civilian army in the world.

I do agree that DC is the place to start, but that does not render the states impotent.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > So, nothing specific.  All is good then.  Thanks for the heads up.  We'll be sure to be on the watch in case this should ever happen.
> ...


 
A state doesn't have a "moral structure".  However, the 1st amendment provides for the right of the citizens to express themselves.  Are you saying that the states should be able to lock you up for saying something the governor doesn't like and you have no recourse to the federal courts or relief?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> A state doesn't have a "moral structure".



Too long an issue to deal with here today.



PratchettFan said:


> Are you saying that the states should be able to lock you up for saying something the governor doesn't like and you have no recourse to the federal courts or relief?



Of course not, but am referring to the pressure to engage in support for events with which one's conscience disagrees or risk being shut down for lack of acceptance.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Armed?  Against tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > A state doesn't have a "moral structure".
> ...


 
The 1st amendment states:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say the states can't make such laws.  It says Congress can't make them.  The only way you can extend the 1st amendment to the states is to consider them under federal jurisdiction.  If the federal courts do not have this authority then the states can limit free speech, create a state religion and jail you for failing to attend church, and lock up anyone carrying a sign that disagrees with them.

Now, the only way the federal government pressures states is by the threat of withholding money.  Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't put conditions on money it gives to the states?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Count on your fingers.  Consider Vietnam and ME.  Insurgencies/belligerent powers are not to be trifled with.

And again, consider the likelihood that in this time much of the rank and file would bolt.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 
This assumes all of the US citizens joined the insurrection.  I'd say it's more likely the vast majority of those citizens would side with the government.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Vietnam had china's backing.  We would have.... toys.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh please.  In 1776 one third of colonists favored rebellion, one third favored Britain, one third didn't give a rat's ass for either.  With some late assistance from France, the former defeated the greatest military force of the time.  And you are still assuming no rank-and-file would bolt and bring their "toys" with them.

All this is academic, of course.  The ballot box is still the battlefield here, a circumstance we'd best maintain.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


In 1776 armies comprised people with single shot rifles, pretty much the same stuff the people used to hunt game.  In 2015 armies comprise machine guns, TANKS, BOMBERS, FIGHTER JETS, RPGs, chemical weapons of mass destruction, pain machines that literally cook the enemy with microwaves, ... and the people have single shot repeating rifles.

As for the ballot box... it's stuffed.  Both political parties are willing accomplices in maintaining federal hegemony over the people.  You have only one choice.. and that is to vote for the two headed hydra or "throw away your vote" by choosing a libertarian or other party.


----------



## Votto (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The point is that smaller forces have often throughout history defeated the larger and better equipped ones, and it is unlikely American forces would be willing to decimate the country against its own people, as well as weakening itself and leaving the nation open to foreign invasion simply to satisfy the whims of erroneous  federal political direction.

We have an insurmountable difference of opinion on this as well, and this has strayed a bit from the subject of the thread.

Fin.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 22, 2015)

Votto said:


> Under Article V the states can rise up and amend the Constituion, the movement has alreay begun.



Bingo.

(BTW you missed a quote bumper)


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 22, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Neither point is insurmountable.  I'm just playing the role of pragmatist. 

There are ways to fix this mess.


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 26, 2020)

dblack said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Which, of course, is never settled.


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 26, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> *"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."*
> 
> The amendment, largely abandoned following the Civil War, further limits the authority of the federal government to that enumerated within the Constitution itself.  Since that time, the federal government has more and more usurped the powers of the sovereign states, using bastard "interpretations" (AKA intentional  misreading) of the general welfare and commerce clauses to give itself blanket authority to do virtually anything it wants, including seizing state lands and holding them in perpetuity and limiting the expression of constitutional rights within the states.
> 
> ...



First and foremost the 10th amendment requires consistent champions.

It is not so much the efforts of the left to subvert it as it has been negligence on the part of conservatives.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 27, 2020)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Why did you post a collection of lies to support your fantasy?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 27, 2020)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Historical examples?  Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.


----------

