The 10th Amendment

[Foxfyre]

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this. And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful. The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was trying to articulate.

I agree 100% with FA at the federal level for the very reason you defend. Going back to your social security suggestion, it is specifically the fact that giving the federal government power to administer a social security program will almost certainly introduce a level of tyranny that I oppose the federal government having any such powers. Indeed the results of allowing that crack in the fabric of charity at the federal level has produced a great deal of tyranny to the point that our basic freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are slowly being absorbed into a government that the Founders so very much wanted to prevent happening.

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.

 

[Listening]

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this. And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful. The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was trying to articulate.

I agree 100% with FA at the federal level for the very reason you defend. Going back to your social security suggestion, it is specifically the fact that giving the federal government power to administer a social security program will almost certainly introduce a level of tyranny that I oppose the federal government having any such powers. Indeed the results of allowing that crack in the fabric of charity at the federal level has produced a great deal of tyranny to the point that our basic freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are slowly being absorbed into a government that the Founders so very much wanted to prevent happening.

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.

Let's put Social Security aside. I will probably start a thread on it. But, I would say that (and I hope that this at least procedurally brings us into alignment) I would want to see a constitutional amendment.

The founders constantly warned about government and all the insidious ways it can screw us. I agree. Most things start out as "good ideas" (Who can argue that an excellent health care/health insurance market isn't desirable), but the government sucks at doing anything for several fundamental reasons (and they certainly showed through on Obummercare).

As to local governments.

There comes a time when it becomes necessary to discuss what government should do and what it should not do.

The constitution was designed to be specific and very limiting.

As you moved down to the states, you might have the same thing (I guess in theory, you would have something in your state constitution that would say if it isn't specific...it belongs to the county....don't know). The state would have certain functions. Do you want them handling education ? Each state gets to decide how that gets laid out. And as you move down the chain, it is easier to customize or tailor what goes on. We have two cities side by side where I live. They have very different approaches to things. One is more liberal in it's approach than the other. As you might expect, the liberal city has a higher sales tax. It also is tougher to get permits to do things to your house because of regulation. There are other "features" of the city that are the hallmark of a liberal hand. I don't mind that so much because it is very local (I live in the liberal city).

What pisses me off is that you can't get conservatives to ever discuss a city budget. I go to meetings and they are always wailing about abortion (grinds my teeth...it's all you hear) or about the state education board....but talk about the city budget ? Not in a million years. I've been to city budget meetings where NOBODY was there but me.

Sorry.

The city is where I'd rather fight might battles on many issues. I know half my council and I think the mayor knows me by name (and it is not a "small" city). It isn't very easy (for reasons just listed) to fight the battles...but it SHOULD be.

 

[FA_Q2]

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this. And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful. The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was trying to articulate.

Sure and I can agree with all of that. None of what you stated has anything to do with the quoted statements though. I was speaking directly about rights that we have determined important enough to warrant protection from government. You still have not articulated why those rights should be protected from one government but not from another.

I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also. The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California. IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times). I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.

In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well. That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement – not just some government infringement.

 

[BlackSand]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

Bingo ... Starting with Helvering vs Davis and then solidified with South Dakota vs Dole The Federal Government has essentially seized control over States' Rights.

The first judicial ruling removed the court's ability to review Congressional spending policies.
The second ruling set precedence towards the ability of the Federal Government to coerce States into adopting Federal Standards through withholding or limiting Federal Funding.
Both cases have set precedence towards the judiciary's ability or lack thereof to limit Federal powers ... And most assuredly through the Federal Government's ability to tax and spend.

The States have no choice but to follow Federal legislation as long as it can be tied to spending.

For instance ... The legal drinking age was federally mandated, but only through the ability of Congress to withhold Federal Funding for highways and improvements if the States chose not to comply.
The same thing could happen with firearms .. In that the Federal Government could withhold funding in regards to law enforcement or corrections ... If the States choose not to comply.

The only way the States will ever regain any of their once appropriate power ... Is when Governors accept the responsibility of ensuring the rights of their citizens.

They will have to just say no the Federal Government ... Such as in the case where several states have refused additional federal funding and not adopted some provisions of the ACA.
Still that is not going to restore any power until the states have the backbone to fight back ... And start limiting the resources the Federal Government is allowed to loot from them.
Consequences suffered during the Civil War for the Rebellion against Federal Powers ... Is not something State Governments or their citizens are prepared to engage in any time soon.
It is a moot argument until the States are willing to do what is necessary to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their business ... At which point it is not going to go well for them anyway.

Essentially we are attempting to argue a point that is dead and buried ... Literally.

.

 

[Listening]

And that is where I differ. What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one. That makes exactly zero sense. I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights? For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have. That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state. Why bother with outlining protections at all then? They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights. Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. None. Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.

You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this. And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful. The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was trying to articulate.

Sure and I can agree with all of that. None of what you stated has anything to do with the quoted statements though. I was speaking directly about rights that we have determined important enough to warrant protection from government. You still have not articulated why those rights should be protected from one government but not from another.

There is the question of scope and there is the question of process.

I only want to cede the minimum amount of liberties necessary to preserve the rest. A list is not possible.

I think you may be hung up on my comments about gun laws and my willingness to let people screw themselves at the state level.

What I was trying to say was that I would rather see people give up those rights at the state level (voluntarily) than see them taken away at the federal level. I am, in now way, interested in gun laws at any level and would want that protection written into the state constitution where I live. But, if people are stupid enough to given them up...I'd rather see it done on a piecmeal basis. If a state, say New Jersery, did that...it would be much easier for better minds to reverse that 10 years down the road than it would be to try and fight out a constitutional amendment at the federal level.

But, make no mistake about it, I want state government constrained as much as possible.

I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also. The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California. IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times). I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.

Here we don't agree.

If you are one of a 100 votes, you have 1% of the power. If you are one of a 1,000,000 votes, you have 0.0001% of the power. That is why it is better to keep it smaller. And your point about the dilution of Californias voting base really is an interesting topic of convresation. I've seen proposals that increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to get back to the original proportional representation. It would take a small basketball arena to house them all. While I may not want that many...I'd like to see more. In fact, in most states, the representation of your state member of the house may be to a larger group than the original founders ! Now, that is not good.

There does come a point where government will provide services. How those services are provided (and what services are provided) and how they are paid for are much better managed at the local level (or would be).

In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well. That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement – not just some government infringement.

I think we agree. We want the most limited government possible at all levels.

My contention is simply that if we need to ask government to do something (i.e. build roads), I want to do it at the lowest level that makes sense.

I should also add that this also guards against a rough judiciary. The smaller the scope you can create for them to operate over, the better your chances of not having them impress their will on larges sections of the populace and the easier it is to reverse their mistakes.

 

[Listening]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

Bingo ... Starting with Helvering vs Davis and then solidified with South Dakota vs Dole The Federal Government has essentially seized control over States' Rights.

The first judicial ruling removed the court's ability to review Congressional spending policies.
The second ruling set precedence towards the ability of the Federal Government to coerce States into adopting Federal Standards through withholding or limiting Federal Funding.
Both cases have set precedence towards the judiciaries ability or lack thereof to limit Federal powers ... And most assuredly through the Federal Government's ability to tax and spend.

The States have no choice but to follow Federal legislation as long as it can be tied to spending.

For instance ... The legal drinking age was federally mandated, but only through the ability of Congress to withhold Federal Funding for highways and improvements if the States chose not to comply.
The same thing could happen with firearms .. In that the Federal Government could withhold funding in regards to law enforcement or corrections ... If the States choose not to comply.

The only way the States will ever regain any of their once appropriate power ... Is when Governors accept the responsibility of ensuring the rights of their citizens.

They will have to just say no the Federal Government ... Such as in the case where several states have refused additional federal funding and not adopted some provisions of the ACA.
Still that is not going to restore any power until the states have the backbone to fight back ... And start limiting the resources the Federal Government is allowed to loot from them.
Consequences suffered during the Civil War for the Rebellion against Federal Powers ... Is not something State Governments or their citizens are prepared to engage in any time soon.
It is a moot argument until the States are willing to do what is necessary to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their business ... At which point it is not going to go well for them anyway.

Essentially we are attempting to argue a point that is dead and buried ... Literally.

.

Hey,

And thanks for joining.

I am not going to cede that last point.

I like the line from Start Wars where Princess Lea (sp?) says to one of the imperial heads (Peter Cushing) "The tighter you squeeze, the more that will slip through your fingers", meaning that as much as you'd like to control everything....you simply can't.

The vietnamese used to have a saying that "The emporers write stops at the entrance to the village". You can look at that a number of ways....take it for what it is worth.

Earlier, I quoted where Slate said that Roe is essentially dead. States have been quietly (and not so quietly) hemming in the decision over time. They will never stop pressing.

Conservatives can do the same thing with other laws. But, the contention of my OP was that you need to start quietly and work on the low hanging fruit. Conservatives also need to be organized better to do this.

But I contend we can get back to a lot of things...including slowing down this bullshyt commerce clause approach (again thanks to the traitor FDR for putting in his judges that had their heads up their asses).

It won't happen over night.

But it ain't dead !

This thread was supposed to be as much about activism as anything else.

Rep on the way for hopping in...when I can give you some more.

Again...thanks.

 

[PMZ]

Boehner finally grew a pair and started divorce proceedings with conservatives because they were killing his organization's ability to get elected.

As I've said for a long time, the GOP's only chance at redemption.

I wish he and them luck. I wish you and yours goodbye.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is the question of scope and there is the question of process.

I only want to cede the minimum amount of liberties necessary to preserve the rest. A list is not possible.

Agreed. A list is obviously not feasible and hence why the tenth exists in the first place.

I think you may be hung up on my comments about gun laws and my willingness to let people screw themselves at the state level.

The gun law as an example is meaningless. Pick any right in the constitution be it new or original. I believe that all of them should be equally protected from all levels of government. Heck, guns is small in comparison to many other rights that the state government could infringe on. Would you accept 51% of the people in your state voting that you no longer have the right to trial by jury?

What I was trying to say was that I would rather see people give up those rights at the state level (voluntarily) than see them taken away at the federal level. I am, in now way, interested in gun laws at any level and would want that protection written into the state constitution where I live. But, if people are stupid enough to given them up...I'd rather see it done on a piecmeal basis. If a state, say New Jersery, did that...it would be much easier for better minds to reverse that 10 years down the road than it would be to try and fight out a constitutional amendment at the federal level.

But, make no mistake about it, I want state government constrained as much as possible.

And I can agree with that as well. I guess where I am hung up is the fact that you stated it would be acceptable for the majority to vote to remove a right that is guaranteed protection in the constitution at the state level. All that you have stated has not answered the first question I asked:
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so? I don’t see why a majority can remove infringe on my right to free speech in a state but cannot in the federal government. In both cases a basic guaranteed right is infringed without my consent. It is wrong no matter what and a majority should not be able to do so in any case as it relates to protected rights. If we had what you are suggesting then I would just can the entire BoR – it is meaningless if my rights can be infringed upon whenever 51% of my state decides that they don’t like the right.

I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also. The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California. IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times). I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.

Here we don't agree.

If you are one of a 100 votes, you have 1% of the power. If you are one of a 1,000,000 votes, you have 0.0001% of the power. That is why it is better to keep it smaller. And your point about the dilution of Californias voting base really is an interesting topic of convresation. I've seen proposals that increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to get back to the original proportional representation. It would take a small basketball arena to house them all. While I may not want that many...I'd like to see more. In fact, in most states, the representation of your state member of the house may be to a larger group than the original founders ! Now, that is not good.

I think that you misunderstand what I was stating. I agree with the above. What I meant was that size is irrelevant because it is not STATIC. IOW, you might be 1 in 1000 votes in your municipality now but you might be 1 in 100,000 votes in ten years. IOW, declaring that states should have the power to infringe on your rights because you have more voting power there is not a static fact. A voter in the beginning of this nation had MORE power over the FEDERAL government than one does now over their state government in CA – the population there is larger than the founding population of the entire nation. Smaller IS better but that does not mean that we should allow state governments the right to infringe on our rights just because they happen to be closer to us than the federal government. That distance changes and is likely to get larger as time passes.

Voting power is also rather irrelevant to my contention because your protected rights are not subject popular vote no matter how small the particular community is. It is akin to stating that it is acceptable for the local municipality to decide that your right to trial by jury is now nullified and they can imprison you without a trial. Do you think that would be right? I mean, you might be in a municipality of 100 people and have a powerful vote. Just because it is local does not mean they should be able to infringe on your rights like that and the same goes for all of government, states included.

There does come a point where government will provide services. How those services are provided (and what services are provided) and how they are paid for are much better managed at the local level (or would be).

Agreed and still has nothing to do with the statements I have been making.

Let’s cut a lot of this out – I agree with your contention that local government is the better place to take care of most government functions. I agree that they should have a grater role in the community than the federal government. The ONE contention that we have (and the one that I don’t think you have been responding to) is that I don’t agree that the states should have the ability – through popular vote – to infringe on your rights.

Remember – this entire portion of the conversation is about INCORPORATION – the SCOTUS decision that the constitutionally protected rights apply to the states as well as the federal government. The fact that states should have more powers and be more involved with running things than the federal government is irrelevant to that contention but it seems to be the place you keep going back to. Even though we agreed many times….

In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well. That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement – not just some government infringement.

I think we agree. We want the most limited government possible at all levels.

My contention is simply that if we need to ask government to do something (i.e. build roads), I want to do it at the lowest level that makes sense.

I should also add that this also guards against a rough judiciary. The smaller the scope you can create for them to operate over, the better your chances of not having them impress their will on larges sections of the populace and the easier it is to reverse their mistakes.

Again, all agreed. Read the above. Not one single thing you typed in your response covered my single contention – that the states do not have the right to infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

Other than that, there is not much that we disagree on.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.

I’ll give you that fox. There are things like roads, cops and schools that are functions of society that I have no problem with government involvement. Perhaps I was being a little too harsh.

I see most of those as extensions of our rights though so it all ties into the same thing. I usually disagree with government doing things because it deems it the greater good but don’t have a problem with government filling a communal need. Those are very close to the same thing but I believe that there is some VERY important distinctions between the two.

 

[PMZ]

Laws establish consequences for actions designed to impose what's best for the criminal on victims. The fact that we enjoy more freedom than any prior humans is due to our laws. Everyday potential criminals think of new ways to impose their will on victims. So, everyday, more laws are required to discourage that.

Our freedom comes from strong government, not weak.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.

I’ll give you that fox. There are things like roads, cops and schools that are functions of society that I have no problem with government involvement. Perhaps I was being a little too harsh.

I see most of those as extensions of our rights though so it all ties into the same thing. I usually disagree with government doing things because it deems it the greater good but don’t have a problem with government filling a communal need. Those are very close to the same thing but I believe that there is some VERY important distinctions between the two.

The difference is the concept of social contract that the Founders supported without reservation. For citizens to band together to form a volunteer Fire Dept that serves all as well as lowers everybody's insurance premiums is a valid idea of social contract in which the people exercise their liberty to form the society they wish to have. Ditto when they vote to have police protection that serves all and eventually incorporate as a community to achieve administrative oversight over all the shared functions. Infrastructure in the way of streets, roads, sewer systems, etc. naturally follows, but in every step of the way, the community votes the bonds to fund whaever they wish to have from museums to libraries to a water treatment plant. Local elected officials to provide oversight of shared community services are naturally going to be responsive to the demands of the majority.

At the Federal Government level, the idea of elected representatives is also a concept of social contract, but it becomes corrupted when the representatives give in to temptation to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, personal wealth, and longevity. And because the federal structure is not dependent on the permission of the people, giving the federal government more than its basic constitutional authority is a guarantee that those in government will succumb to destructive temptations.

 

[PMZ]

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.

I’ll give you that fox. There are things like roads, cops and schools that are functions of society that I have no problem with government involvement. Perhaps I was being a little too harsh.

I see most of those as extensions of our rights though so it all ties into the same thing. I usually disagree with government doing things because it deems it the greater good but don’t have a problem with government filling a communal need. Those are very close to the same thing but I believe that there is some VERY important distinctions between the two.

The difference is the concept of social contract that the Founders supported without reservation. For citizens to band together to form a volunteer Fire Dept that serves all as well as lowers everybody's insurance premiums is a valid idea of social contract. Ditto when they vote to have police protection that serves all and eventually incorporate as a community to achieve administrative oversight over all the shared functions. Infrastructure in the way of streets, roads, sewer systems, etc. naturally follows, but in every step of the way, the community votes the bonds to fund whaever they wish to have from museums to libraries to a water treatment plant. Local elected officials to provide oversight of shared community services are naturally going to be responsive to the demands of the majority.

At the Fedeal Government level, the idea of elected representatives is also a concept of social contract, but it becomes corrupted when the representatives give in to temptation to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, personal wealth, and longevity. And because the federal structure is not dependent on the permission of the people, giving the federal government more than its basic constitutional authority is a guarantee that those in government will succumb to destructive temptations.

"giving the federal government more than its basic constitutional authority"

There is, of course, no evidence of this ever having happened.

The Founders have been shown to be much smarter than conservatives today in that they wrote bylaws for Federal government that have stood the test of time and maintained their authority in a world of immense, continual and ever increasing change. That’s why conservatives hate our Constitution as written, and wish that it was different. Change, to them, is to be strenuously avoided. Stasis must be king.

What's puzzling is that they completely miss the fact that their recent attempts at static government in a dynamic world have been spectacular failures. An inconvenient reality that is avoided by refusing personal responsibility for that truth and blaming Democrats, liberals, workers, the middle class, the poor, gays, non Christians, non Caucasians, women, government workers, union members, educators, intellectuals, environmentalists, regulators, scientists, foreigners, and Santa for all of the damage they did.

Currently they are stunned to learn that none of those who they've blamed will be voting for their candidates.

 

[Foxfyre]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

Bingo ... Starting with Helvering vs Davis and then solidified with South Dakota vs Dole The Federal Government has essentially seized control over States' Rights.

The first judicial ruling removed the court's ability to review Congressional spending policies.
The second ruling set precedence towards the ability of the Federal Government to coerce States into adopting Federal Standards through withholding or limiting Federal Funding.
Both cases have set precedence towards the judiciary's ability or lack thereof to limit Federal powers ... And most assuredly through the Federal Government's ability to tax and spend.

The States have no choice but to follow Federal legislation as long as it can be tied to spending.

For instance ... The legal drinking age was federally mandated, but only through the ability of Congress to withhold Federal Funding for highways and improvements if the States chose not to comply.
The same thing could happen with firearms .. In that the Federal Government could withhold funding in regards to law enforcement or corrections ... If the States choose not to comply.

The only way the States will ever regain any of their once appropriate power ... Is when Governors accept the responsibility of ensuring the rights of their citizens.

They will have to just say no the Federal Government ... Such as in the case where several states have refused additional federal funding and not adopted some provisions of the ACA.
Still that is not going to restore any power until the states have the backbone to fight back ... And start limiting the resources the Federal Government is allowed to loot from them.
Consequences suffered during the Civil War for the Rebellion against Federal Powers ... Is not something State Governments or their citizens are prepared to engage in any time soon.
It is a moot argument until the States are willing to do what is necessary to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their business ... At which point it is not going to go well for them anyway.

Essentially we are attempting to argue a point that is dead and buried ... Literally.

.

After being immersed in American history for a lot of years, and more recently focusing on the government process in some depth, I am now convinced there is one way and one way only to restore the power to the people.

We have to have a Constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for Congress or the President or any bureaucrat in the federal government to authorize any benefit of any kind to any person, entity, group, or demographic that is not extended to all citizens without respect for socioeconomic status or political party. That would mean no special rules for one group that do not apply to all. That would mean no tax breaks for one group that do not apply to all. That would mean no charity or subsidies of any kind to anybody that are not provided to all.

That simple concept would bust government back to its pre-T.R. Roosevelt days and re-establish the intent of the 10th Amendment.

 

[PMZ]

You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment. Block granting. The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then ‘gift’ it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal ‘charity.’ Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it. The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don’t get the goods.

Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.

Bingo ... Starting with Helvering vs Davis and then solidified with South Dakota vs Dole The Federal Government has essentially seized control over States' Rights.

The first judicial ruling removed the court's ability to review Congressional spending policies.
The second ruling set precedence towards the ability of the Federal Government to coerce States into adopting Federal Standards through withholding or limiting Federal Funding.
Both cases have set precedence towards the judiciary's ability or lack thereof to limit Federal powers ... And most assuredly through the Federal Government's ability to tax and spend.

The States have no choice but to follow Federal legislation as long as it can be tied to spending.

For instance ... The legal drinking age was federally mandated, but only through the ability of Congress to withhold Federal Funding for highways and improvements if the States chose not to comply.
The same thing could happen with firearms .. In that the Federal Government could withhold funding in regards to law enforcement or corrections ... If the States choose not to comply.

The only way the States will ever regain any of their once appropriate power ... Is when Governors accept the responsibility of ensuring the rights of their citizens.

They will have to just say no the Federal Government ... Such as in the case where several states have refused additional federal funding and not adopted some provisions of the ACA.
Still that is not going to restore any power until the states have the backbone to fight back ... And start limiting the resources the Federal Government is allowed to loot from them.
Consequences suffered during the Civil War for the Rebellion against Federal Powers ... Is not something State Governments or their citizens are prepared to engage in any time soon.
It is a moot argument until the States are willing to do what is necessary to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their business ... At which point it is not going to go well for them anyway.

Essentially we are attempting to argue a point that is dead and buried ... Literally.

.

After being immersed in American history for a lot of years, and more recently focusing on the government process in some depth, I am now convinced there is one way and one way only to restore the power to the people.

We have to have a Constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for Congress or the President or any bureaucrat in the federal government to authorize any benefit of any kind to any person, entity, group, or demographic that is not extended to all citizens without respect for socioeconomic status or political party. That would mean no special rules for one group that do not apply to all. That would mean no tax breaks for one group that do not apply to all. That would mean no charity or subsidies of any kind to anybody that are not provided to all.

That simple concept would bust government back to its pre-T.R. Roosevelt days and re-establish the intent of the 10th Amendment.

This is clearly aimed at the wealthy harvesting the 15% of the wealth, now split among 80% of the people, that they are dying to get.

They have reduced the majority of the people who create all wealth, the middle class, to poor. They have elevated themselves to lavish wealth, but still, there is that 15% that they have to have before they can declare full aristocracy.

What they are too dumb to see, is that they are carving up everyone's golden goose.

Unless we keep all Republicans out of government, until the Party has thoroughly cleansed themselves of all vestiges of conservatism, they will relentlessly pursue the only wealth that they can't claim today.

The 15%.

 

[Listening]

The gun law as an example is meaningless. Pick any right in the constitution be it new or original. I believe that all of them should be equally protected from all levels of government. Heck, guns is small in comparison to many other rights that the state government could infringe on. Would you accept 51% of the people in your state voting that you no longer have the right to trial by jury?

I don't agree. Would I accept it...I would have no choice.

Would I like it...? Certainly not.

 

[Listening]

[q
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so? I don’t see why a majority can remove infringe on my right to free speech in a state but cannot in the federal government. In both cases a basic guaranteed right is infringed without my consent. It is wrong no matter what and a majority should not be able to do so in any case as it relates to protected rights. If we had what you are suggesting then I would just can the entire BoR – it is meaningless if my rights can be infringed upon whenever 51% of my state decides that they don’t like the right.

While I understand the theoretical context of your argument, I am less concerned about losing my right to a trial by jury than I am to having the SCOTUS clearly overstep it's constitutional authority. The first hasn't happened. The second happens all the time.

 

[PMZ]

[q
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so? I don’t see why a majority can remove infringe on my right to free speech in a state but cannot in the federal government. In both cases a basic guaranteed right is infringed without my consent. It is wrong no matter what and a majority should not be able to do so in any case as it relates to protected rights. If we had what you are suggesting then I would just can the entire BoR – it is meaningless if my rights can be infringed upon whenever 51% of my state decides that they don’t like the right.

While I understand the theoretical context of your argument, I am less concerned about losing my right to a trial by jury than I am to having the SCOTUS clearly overstep it's constitutional authority. The first hasn't happened. The second happens all the time.

Only if the standard is what you wish that our Constitution said.

That's not the case.

 

[PMZ]

While I understand the theoretical context of your argument, I am less concerned about losing my right to a trial by jury than I am to having the SCOTUS clearly overstep it's constitutional authority. The first hasn't happened. The second happens all the time.

Only if the standard is what you wish that our Constitution said.

That's not the case.

I am sure you got your education on the Constitution out of a cracker jack box...even then you don't seem to remember much, or you got it from our Affirmative Action Failure, so Called Constitutional Expert....which amounts to getting it out of cracker jack box.

Either way, you've not demonstrated any knowledge of the Constitution. Except what Howard Dean has informed you all the while he's rubbing your back.

I accept the Constitution for what it says, not what I wish it said. The fact that you are out of step with most experts doesn't mean that they are wrong.

You can quote the floor sweepings from the Constitutional Convention all that you want, but there is only one set of words that were agreed to and ratified, the ones that we follow.

 

[Listening]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

I'll bring this forward in order to refocus the discussion.

Clearly the 10th amendment severely restricts the federal government. This has been demonstrated time and time again, both in the original writings of the Founding Fathers and in the behavior of the federal government and (most importantly) the SCOUTS up until the time FDR.

The GOP has been utilizing somewhat successfully a hedging strategy to pin in what they don't like.

What will it take for the GOP to step on the accelerator in that regard ?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.

Take the First Amendment:

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.​

This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.

The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.

Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.

And so forth. . . .

The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.

The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.

That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.