“I’m not sure what the 10’th amendment states, but it seems to me the supreme court has an obligation to set OBJECTIVE definitions whenever states attempt to force SUBJECTIVE interpretations that violate what should be objective laws or customs. This is to prevent states from declaring everyone must shave their heads on Tuesdays to prevent cooties- this clearly violates the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do- especially in light of the fact that cooties are quite rare”
Look it up. Paraphrasing—all matters not delegated to the federal government in this Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people thereof.
Regulation of virtually all moral matters (head lice or cooties, abortion, sodomy, incest etc etc etc) was part of what was referred to as the “police power” and was reserved exclusively to the states. The 10 amendment codifies that reservation.
So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties or require cootie sensitivity training :), but the authors of the Constitution did not. So if you want that change, amend the Constitution.
BTW, the pursuit of happiness is not one of the rights in the bill of rights nor was furthering it an enumerated power of Congress. It was a phrase used in the declaration of independence.
This is to prevent states from declaring everyone must shave their heads on Tuesdays to prevent cooties- this clearly violates the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do- especially in light of the fact that cooties are quite rare
[[So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties or require cootie sensitivity training :), ]]
[[Look it up. Paraphrasing—all matters not delegated to the federal government in this Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people thereof]]
the 14’th amendment to the constitutution was interpreted by McReynalds to mean the ‘orderly pursuit of happiness by free men’ in Meyer v. Nebraska
That pursuit of happiness wasn’t specifically in the constitution, Yet the SC court ruled that man is entitled to the orderly pursuit of it-
I will say it again- a police action declaring that people must shave their heads violates the pursuit of happiness- especially if it violates a religious belief against shaving heads- the SC then has an obligation to step in and determine if the states have the right to demand that everyone shave their heads or not if the state insists that it has the right to demand that in clear violation of the bill of rights decree that man is entitled to the pursuit of happiness (in an orderly manner as determined by supreme court)
If all ‘m,oral’ matters are left to the states to enforce, then the supreme court would not have had to weigh in on whether or not black folks could vote, or women could vote, or if a state law about morality violates a constitutional right then the supreme court has to step in and declare the state law unconstitutional of course-
[[So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties ]]
I never suggested that the supreme court regulate them- I suggested that it is their duty to determine if such a law violates constitutional rights- and if a religious belief believes it’s a sin to cut hair on Tuesdays, then this is a clear violation of religious right, aND the pursuit of happiness.
The supreme court has weighed in on several Different m oral issues, polygamy being one- where the plaintiff claimed the state was violating his right to marry based many women- He claimed he had a ‘religious duty’ to do so and that the states were impeding that duty-
Up until then, there was a federal nationwide ban on polygamy “obviously directed at the polygamous practices of the Mormons, merely extended over the Territories the common law in relation to bigamy which exists in every State of the Union.”
The court found he was not allowed to practice it (in this case upholding the state’s ban on his multiple marriages)
The supreme court is basically there to make sure everything In the states doesn’t violate constitutional law-, and even if the SC should vote I na way I don’;t agree with- and might uphold a states right to demand shaved heads on Tuesdays- I still want the supreme court at least hearing matters in which constitutional rights are violated possibly-
The SC is our last line of defense against rogue state (and federal) governments- or at least it’s supposed to be-