[Amendment10]

I used to admire Scalia. However, I question if Scalia is actually a "conservative" actvist justice as evidenced by what Scalia noted in Arizona v. US opinion which tested state power to address immigation issues. In Arizona opinion, Scalia volunteered an excerpt from Jefferson's writings where Jefferson claimed that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate immigration. Scalia wrote on page 5 of Arizona the following.

'Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions insisted “that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are [and] that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens.”' --Justice Scalia, Arizona v. US.

But do you think that Jefferson's extract would have had more impact if Scalia had not stopped short of Jefferson's inclusion of the context 10th Amendment in the sentence immediately following in Jefferson's writing?

"4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. 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," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

So while Scalia expresses doubt that the Constitution can be restored to its original meaning, his omission of a reference to a key amendment is arguably evidence thet he is actually helping to dilute the Constitution.

[SC_Pete]

WOW. Agreed. However, his main point is that only the people can save the Constitution. In my opinion, the Court has been corrupted with LEFTISTS.

READ THE BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett

ALSO: (strategy)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1284371

I THINK THIS IS OUR ONLY REALISTIC SHOT AT SURVIVAL. The Republic is on life support. But it CAN be resucitated BY THE STATES. We could circumvent Washington and put it in its place. The Constitution and the framers anticipated a crisis such as the one we are in. THEY GAVE US A WAY OUT.