Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 02/09/2009 6:51:33 AM PST by SunkenCiv
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at populistamerica.com ...
Our View of the Tenth AmendmentThe Constitution applies to the federal government. Its sole purpose was to spell out what the government can do.
The key principle of the Constitution is quite simple: positive grant. Unfortunately, this is not a phrase that many of us hear in daily banter these days. But, it's not a complicated principle at all.
What it means is this - the US federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Period. End of story.
The founders felt so strongly about this principle that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment:
"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 a casual review of the activities of the federal government would make clear that there's very little that it does which is actually authorized by the Constitution.
For many, many years, we've allowed our politicians to interpret and bend the rules of the Constitution; ostensibly for good reasons. But, we have to face reality. When you allow politicians to do this over long periods, eventually you end up with leaders who feel that the law doesn't apply at all.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
If we are to have a free society for the future, we must reign in this out-of-control federal government, and return to our Constitution; with a special emphasis on the limitations imposed on government by the Tenth Amendment.
Ah, yes, the forgotten Amendment. It seems to be quite clear, doesn’t it?
Ping.
The tenth what? Thats crazy talk!
Everyone knows Social Security, federal flush toilet laws, and lightbulb bans are constitutional!
If the states weren’t intended to have rights there wouldn’t be any states at this point.
Strunk had nothing on the Framers. :’)
How the Judiciary Effectively Repealed the 10th Amendment
CAPITALISM MAGAZINE | November 19, 2003 | Thomas Sowell
Posted on 11/19/2003 10:31:20 PM PST by jimkress
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1025391/posts
Pirates of the Constitution
Harkonnendog | 6/7/05 | Harkonnendog
Posted on 06/07/2005 3:41:33 PM PDT by Harkonnendog
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1418381/posts
Alaska executive order to drill — do a 10th amendment lawsuit.
12-23-05 | Edcoil
Posted on 12/22/2005 6:18:08 AM PST by edcoil
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545324/posts
-also from the 10thamendment keyword-
U.S. Senator Zell Miller: Floor Statement on Repealing the 17th Amendment
senate.gov | April 28, 2004 | U.S. Senator Zell Miller
Posted on 05/12/2004 7:26:09 AM PDT by ckilmer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1134065/posts
Defending The 17th
Redstate | December 2006 | Dan McLaughlin
Posted on 10/29/2007 7:14:29 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918201/posts
Repeal ‘em all
The Cranky Conservative | October 4, 2007 | The Cranky Conservative
Posted on 12/07/2007 6:17:26 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1936481/posts
|
|
|||
Gods |
Perhaps really organized folks (one of whom I am not) would start with the 1st and work consecutively forward each week. I'm starting with the 10th because it is very much in the news and our concerns. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I keep this at the top of my home page:
~ 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. ~
—Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—
“Any objective observer can see that the Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been enforced, America would be an astonishingly different country. Today’s atmosphere of big government, ever-expanding entitlement programs, and bloated spending threaten to undermine the very basis of American liberty and self-reliance.
To bring about positive social change and to strengthen our most effective and efficient social institutions, we must rein in government, reject calls for expanded entitlement programs, and demand that government intervenes in only very limited ways and only when absolutely necessary.
The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.”
~ Milton Friedman ~
Now it's fixed. The Constitution's original intent was to be a prohibitive instrument regarding federal power.
It would appear that the State of New Hampshire has not forgotten the 10th Amendment! Good to see this.
HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0274
09/01
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3
COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
ANALYSIS
This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
09-0274
09/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “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:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and
That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and
That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
IMO, the states voluntarily gave up their rights when they ratified the 17th Amendment back in 1913.
“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.”
Their comments don't track straight.
“For many, many years, we’ve allowed our politicians...”
Perhaps in some cases we’ve required our politicians to do such things, not merely allowed them to.
“...shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. “
Before this, the government of the United States of America has not had authority to nullify the Constitution. For reasons unknown, they want to change that. “Reasons unknown” because on the face of it, it doesn’t make sense to allow the Federal Government to assume authority it doesn’t have in a complaint that it assumes authority it doesn’t have.
What it means is this - the US federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less. ... Period. End of story.The 10th Amendment isn't entirely dead. Though it is treated like a Red Headed Step Child and beaten like a rented mule whenever Congress can get away with it -- by incorporating the Commerce Clause into EVERY 'law' they can dream up.
Thankfully, the "Rehnquist Court" started to reign in Congress and their abuse of the 'CC' in US v Lopez. Justice Alito also tried in his dissent in US v Rybar (1) when he was on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is from US v Lopez ...
The Court's opinion focused on the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The opinion rejected the government's argument that because crime negatively impacted education Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so.~~ snip~~
It is important to note that although the ruling stopped a decades-long trend of inclusiveness under the commerce clause, it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court had the duty to prevent the legislative branch from usurping state powers over policing the conduct of their citizens. He admitted that the Supreme Court had upheld certain governmental steps towards taking power away from the states, and cited Lopez as a decision that finally stepped in to check the government's authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers.
'Lopez' was really HUGH. It killed Di-Fi's pet law, the 'Gun Free School Zone'. For years she had a long RANT on her senate web page about the decision being 'unfair' as the 'intent' of the law was what mattered because it was "for the children" and constitutionality shouldn't have mattered (you know, she really is quite nuts).
(1) Rybar and the 'CC' is why Turban Durban and the RATS tried to scuttle his appointment to SCOTUS.
...Pingin meself...
Actually the Constitution lays out what the federal government can do (and ALL it can do). If it listed what it can’t do, it would be a very long document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.