DGS49
Diamond Member
The Tenth Amendment is quite simple and clear in its meaning:
"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."
In other words, if the Constitution doesn't assert a "power" for the Federal government, then that power is reserved to the State governments, or ultimately to the people.
This is not surprising. At the time when the Constitution and the first Amendments were being written and ratified, the Founding Fathers thought of the United States as a collection of semi-independent states that were bound together only for the purposes of providing the necessary services of nationhood. If you want to know what they are, you only need to look at Article I, Section 8, which lists them. Basically, Congress (which is to say, the Federal government) can impose taxes, pay the country's debts, and provide for our common defense. It actually lists seventeen specific things that Congress is permitted to do.
People who are unfamiliar with the legal history of the country look at the words, "...provide for...the general welfare..." and incorrectly presume that these words, in effect, void everything else in the section. They say, if Congress can provide for the general welfare, then it can do anything it deems beneficial to the country, regardless of whether it comes under one of the 17 enumerated powers. It doesn't mean this and never did.
But since the New Deal, progressives in elected positions and on the USSC have tried to eviscerate the Tenth Amendment by construing the various powers in such an expanded way that we have reached the point where most young adults cannot even conceive of a situation where Congress wants to pass a law and the Supreme Court would strike it down because Congress doesn't have the power to do it.
Witness the recent USSC consideration of the odious law we have come to call "ObamaCare." A federal health insurance mandate cannot be justified under ANY of the 17 enumerated powers, so the country watched with 'bated breath to see how the progressives would twist Article I to permit this clearly-unconstitutional mandate to make it appear Constitutional.
And as we all know, Chief Justice Roberts concluded - incredibly - that the unconstitutional mandate wasn't a mandate at all, but merely a prerequisite to imposing a tax or a fine...which Congress is clearly empowered to do.
But the point is this: Either we have a Tenth Amendment or we don't. This 80-year kabuki dance, reinterpreting words and expressions to mean what they never were intended to mean, simply to give Congress essentially unlimited power to do whatever it wants, is crazy and destructive.
Why are the States and the Feds at war on marijuana laws? What right does the Federal Government have to say anything on the subject? Why are we fighting about Common Core? The federal government has NO ROLE IN EDUCATION, under our Constitution.
Here's what I suggest: Some enterprising Senator ought to draft an amendment to the Constitution REVOKING the Tenth Amendment. Since it's dead-letter law, let's get rid of it.
What would happen is that the state legislatures would vote it down immediately and emphatically. And this slap-down would make more Americans aware of how out-of-control our Congress is, and would force them to respect the Tenth Amendment, as they did for the first 150 years after the founding.
Alternatively, a revised version of the Tenth Amendment could be proposed, in which there are some rational constraints on Congress and they can't just pass whatever the fuck law any jackass congressperson can dream up - which is today's situation. But I personally can't imagine what any rational alternative to the Tenth Amendment would say.
"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."
In other words, if the Constitution doesn't assert a "power" for the Federal government, then that power is reserved to the State governments, or ultimately to the people.
This is not surprising. At the time when the Constitution and the first Amendments were being written and ratified, the Founding Fathers thought of the United States as a collection of semi-independent states that were bound together only for the purposes of providing the necessary services of nationhood. If you want to know what they are, you only need to look at Article I, Section 8, which lists them. Basically, Congress (which is to say, the Federal government) can impose taxes, pay the country's debts, and provide for our common defense. It actually lists seventeen specific things that Congress is permitted to do.
People who are unfamiliar with the legal history of the country look at the words, "...provide for...the general welfare..." and incorrectly presume that these words, in effect, void everything else in the section. They say, if Congress can provide for the general welfare, then it can do anything it deems beneficial to the country, regardless of whether it comes under one of the 17 enumerated powers. It doesn't mean this and never did.
But since the New Deal, progressives in elected positions and on the USSC have tried to eviscerate the Tenth Amendment by construing the various powers in such an expanded way that we have reached the point where most young adults cannot even conceive of a situation where Congress wants to pass a law and the Supreme Court would strike it down because Congress doesn't have the power to do it.
Witness the recent USSC consideration of the odious law we have come to call "ObamaCare." A federal health insurance mandate cannot be justified under ANY of the 17 enumerated powers, so the country watched with 'bated breath to see how the progressives would twist Article I to permit this clearly-unconstitutional mandate to make it appear Constitutional.
And as we all know, Chief Justice Roberts concluded - incredibly - that the unconstitutional mandate wasn't a mandate at all, but merely a prerequisite to imposing a tax or a fine...which Congress is clearly empowered to do.
But the point is this: Either we have a Tenth Amendment or we don't. This 80-year kabuki dance, reinterpreting words and expressions to mean what they never were intended to mean, simply to give Congress essentially unlimited power to do whatever it wants, is crazy and destructive.
Why are the States and the Feds at war on marijuana laws? What right does the Federal Government have to say anything on the subject? Why are we fighting about Common Core? The federal government has NO ROLE IN EDUCATION, under our Constitution.
Here's what I suggest: Some enterprising Senator ought to draft an amendment to the Constitution REVOKING the Tenth Amendment. Since it's dead-letter law, let's get rid of it.
What would happen is that the state legislatures would vote it down immediately and emphatically. And this slap-down would make more Americans aware of how out-of-control our Congress is, and would force them to respect the Tenth Amendment, as they did for the first 150 years after the founding.
Alternatively, a revised version of the Tenth Amendment could be proposed, in which there are some rational constraints on Congress and they can't just pass whatever the fuck law any jackass congressperson can dream up - which is today's situation. But I personally can't imagine what any rational alternative to the Tenth Amendment would say.
