3 Cheers for the 10th Amendment Movement

Saturday, February 7, 2009 ^ | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

I'm pleased to see the growing movement in State legislatures around the country to remind Americans of the existence and import of the 10th amendment to the Constitution. It reads simply "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." These words first of all firmly and unequivocally establish that the U.S. government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution of the United States on the authority of the sovereign people of the United States by whom it is ordained and established. The State governments, established by sovereign decision of the people of the respective States, continue to enjoy the powers vested in them by their State constitutions, subject only to the specific prohibitions spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

For many years I've stressed the importance of the 10th amendment as it guards against the establishment of consolidated, despotic power at the national level. For a while I was met by incomprehension, incredulity and some ridicule from people who insisted that the Courts have eliminated the 10th amendment from the Constitution through their refusal to respect and enforce it. (This is, by the way, the same argument some are using to excuse the palpable dereliction of Federal Judges and officials who refuse to demand proof that the Alleged Usurper in the White House satisfies the Constitution's eligibility requirement.) However as I have often said, a long string of cases in which the Courts have willfully ignore the Constitution is not a weighty line of precedents, but a long train of abuses.

[combat_boots]

ping to the JimRob, Kristinn DC We are Free People and want to stay that way mission.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2180833/posts

[Brad’s Gramma]

Awesome.....

[celtic gal]

Thank you for posting this defination. It has been mentioned but this makes the amendment clear in our collective memory banks.

[bboop]

You guys go, we’re behind you all the way.

Tenth Amendment is very important. I’ve been thinking this too — what on earth makes the little emperor think he gets to do this?

[JudgemAll]

Problem is that porkulus bills nationalize the states, counties, cities and folkes getting some. Thus the conditions of the 10th amendment point toward a break up of the Union and dissolution of the US as we know it if combined with porkulus bills of the sort we just got.

[Frantzie]

How do we get this to all states? We need a kit for every state.

We never thought we could get the majority of states to approve CCW (concealed carry) laws and we did. Do we have 39 CCW states?

[JSDude1]

I have quitely thought for a while (though I didn’t expect it this soon into the Obama Adminstration) that Now with Democrats in controll of all three sections of law making process nationally, that the people would turn to the states, and that (peaceful-though it’s not here yet, and these resolutions are only the fringe of this idea) secession may be the last weapon/bastion of protecting American liberty that we have left..!

[Arizona Carolyn]

and Boxer is on the move to turn us over to the UN

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/02/07/boxer-urges-quick-handover-of-us-power-to-un/

[Husker24]

IN order to legally succeed each state would need “permission” from 3/4 of the other states, its a system designed to fail. On the other hand, I say under the right circumstances, do it anyway.

[jwparkerjr]

I read through the original post and although I agree with it 100 percent, I found it very long and confusing. Anything that's going to need public support has to be short and to the point. It has to be repeated over and over and over. And you have to have answers to the objections its detractors will throw at you.

More and more citizens, and non-citizens for that matter, are slopping at the public trough. We banter around the fact that nearly half of our voting population pays no taxes. There is a point at which that number will have grown large enough that it will sink us.

Look at the new law, SCHIP. Families with an income of $80,000 are going to be buying medical insurance using a subsidy from the federal government. President Bush vetoed this bill repeatedly when its cost was projected at $35 billion. The cost of the bill signed this week by Obama is over $200 billion dollars! And that's IN ADDITION to the $900 billion we're getting ready to pass this week.

[Idabilly]

This right is claimed as resulting, from the rights and powers which the several States had when they formed the Constitution; and from the nature and purposes of the Union created by the Constitution, as shown by its face and by the history of its formation and adoption.

In the first place, each State was, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a sovereign and independent State, and acted as such in adopting the Constitution. This is manifest—from the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the several States to be “free and independent States”—from the second of the Articles of Confederation of 1778, which declares that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not thereby expressly delegated to the United States”—from the treaty of peace with Great Britain, after the close of the war of the revolution, recognising each State by name as a “free, sovereign and independent State”—and finally, by the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the early history of the Union, in the case of Ware vs. Hylton, 3d Dallas’ Rep., 199, in which it is held by Judge Chase, that the effect of the Declaration of Independence was “not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each State of them was a sovereign and independent State”—a doctrine recognised by numerous subsequent decisions of that Court.

[urtax$@work]

Where is that 3/4 permission rule stated please? I want to
see it for myself.

[RFEngineer]

The 10th Amendment has been on the decline ever since the Civil War answered the argument about state’s rights to secede.

It will probably take something equally traumatic to the nation to reverse the decline of the 10th Amendment, which is now all but irrelevant.

One can expect a strong response from the federal bureaucracy, up to and including force to keep states from assuming the powers that are rightfully theirs under the Constitution.

However, the upside of the economic mess we are in is that the feds are flat broke and simply don’t realize it yet. This will be an opportunity for states to increase their constitutional role.

Good luck, fellas.

[M Kehoe]

Where is that 3/4 permission rule stated please?

There isn't. There are only two places (paragraphs) in the Founding documents that "allow," succession. They are:

From the Declaration of Independence, to wit (paragraph one). And the U.S. Constitution, to wit: Article IV section 4.

Nothing else applies. (Although, some have found same in the ninth and tenth amendments).

5.56mm

[OKSooner]

"Thus the conditions of the 10th amendment point toward a break up of the Union and dissolution of the US as we know it if combined with porkulus bills of the sort we just got. "

So be it. If the Yankees and the Texans get to where they just have too many irreconcilable differences, they just might have to go their separate ways.

If that happens, I know which way I, and my house will go.

[Idabilly]

Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only bound by it’s own voluntary act.” Clearly, the Constitution cannot be said to have been ratified by the people of the Nation. The people of the individual States acting in concert for their State and independent from the people of the other States. Pennsylvania’s ratification read; In the name of the people of Pennsylvania,&.the delegates of the people of Pennsylvania&. ratify. New York stated, every power not delegated “remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same.” The people of the individual States could either accede to, accept or reject the Constitution. They, by their accession did form a voluntary union not one held together by bayonet.

[Idabilly]

Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only bound by it’s own voluntary act.” Clearly, the Constitution cannot be said to have been ratified by the people of the Nation. The people of the individual States acting in concert for their State and independent from the people of the other States. Pennsylvania’s ratification read; In the name of the people of Pennsylvania,&.the delegates of the people of Pennsylvania&. ratify. New York stated, every power not delegated “remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same.” The people of the individual States could either accede to, accept or reject the Constitution. They, by their accession did form a voluntary union not one held together by bayonet.

[MosesKnows]

the U.S. government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution of the United States

The words of the 10th 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.
can be best understood after a thorough understanding of Article 1, Section 1.

Article. 1. Section. 1. of the United States Constitution :

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Congress can only write legislation concerning issues within their herein granted constitutional powers. Article. 1. Section. 8. list their herein granted powers.

The most important point to keep in focus that Congress has only these powers and no others. A power not herein granted does not exist. In other words, if the Constitution does not say Congress can then Congress can’t.

This is worth reviewing because some citizens and even some representative believe that if the Constitution doesn’t say Congress can’t then they can. They are mistaken.

This mistaken belief may have its roots in the Bill of Rights, which prohibits government legislation in specific areas. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the citizen. The Bill of Rights recognizes certain citizen rights as inherent and protects these inherent rights from government legislative interference. In this instance, the Constitution does tell Congress what they cannot do.

This overall understanding is necessary for a correct appreciation of the power of the 10th Amendment.

An amendment, such as the 18th Amendment can add a new herein granted power. Congress cannot write legislation prohibiting flag burning or define marriage without adding new “herein granted powers”. The correct way to add a new “herein granted power” is to amend the Constitution. The incorrect way is to re-interpret the Constitution. The amendment itself is not a law; the amendment adds the power allowing Congress to write and enforce a law.

[MrZippy2k]

Ah, if that were the case....States, just like the Financial industry and the Auto industry are asking, and will receive massive handouts....we now know that the Federal government is dictating every move they make, ie how they get from one place to another, what kind of ads they can run, what they pay their employees, and even what types of products they make and sell. Now tell me, what do you think will happen as soon as the first state takes a dollar under the new bill? Yes, total Federal control of state, county and local spending. These guys need to STOP and we need to demand it.