Posted on 02/09/2009 6:51:33 AM PST by SunkenCiv
It denies the government things within powers already granted. For example Congress can lay and collect taxes (Article I Section 8) but it can’t lay direct taxes “...unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” (Article 1 Section 9; although this particular part was done away with by the 16th Amendment).
Saying Habeas Corpus can’t be suspended unless in times of invasion or rebellion is more or less the same as granting the power to suspend Habeas Corpus ONLY in times of invasion and rebellion (which is telling the federal government what it CAN do).
I think we basically agree about the intent and ultimately the outcome is the same; the Constitution is definitely a limiting document.
For the record, the previous poster took the words (“Our View of the Tenth Amendment”) from the source at www.populistamerica.com/10th_amendment .
Your problem is with the language “applies to the federal government”.
My problem is that I see an internal contradiction in “Our View of the Tenth Amendment” as it begins by implying the Constitution applies only to the Federal Government and stating the sole purpose of the Constitution was to spell out what the government can do but then quotes the Tenth Amendment which addresses the States and at least implies things that the States can do, (exercise powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States).
If the sole purpose of the Constitution was to spell out what the Federal Government can do it would not mention what is reserved to the States or the people.
I believe the Constitution has application to the Federal Government and the States and that it spells out things the Federal Government both can and can not do.
The folks at ThePopulistParty website need to get things like that right. We all have to get things like that right if this effort is to prevail.
Our local county council passed an order, making it illegal to do anything on private property that is not specifically permitted by the council. No lie, and they are getting away with it.
One of the council members who voted against it, told me that she wanted to put up a windmill on her property, but she was not allowed. The council had to pass another regulation, permitting windmills, with a permit of course.
“And how did Congress assume the authority to control guns and license gun dealers? The ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution”
The supreme irony is that Marshall first defined that authority, at least in part, to protect the free market. The Gibbons v. Ogden opinion stuck to abolished a monopoly on steamships between New York and New Jersey, which obviously constitutes commerce between states. It wasn’t long, however, before the feds were regulating production in addition to commerce, and intra-state production to boot.
The whole point of the dang clause has been lost. It was intended to prevent the states themselves from erecting trade barriers. The modern federal government, out of its ever-expanding wish to control our lives, has stretched it out to mean that they can regulate the economies of every state in whatever way they see fit. What today does not constitute interstate trade? Childrens’ lemonade stands?
Antitrust was a big blow to the original intent of the clause. The New Deal killed it. Seriously, you should read some of the leaps of logic used during that era. One case involved a dairy farmer who was restricted by federal law to planting only so many acres of wheat. When he planted extra acres for his own consumption, SCOTUS ruled that since had he not grown his own wheat he otherwise would have bought wheat, his not buying wheat on the market affected interstate commerce!
Civil rights legislation, if you can believe it, is also founded the commerce clause. If the government can regulate some part of the economy, it can regulate who you sell to and who you hire. In short, it can regulate (or try to regulate, anyway) the prejudice in your head.
As far as guns are concerned, I’m happy to say that SCOTUS got one thing right when they declared that the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act was B.S.
The bullying endured during the "Civil" War and other acts of the ferals notwithstanding, the states' and the people's rights remained intact. For example, no amendments were repealed BUT we, the states and the people, had become fearful of confronting the beast. And of course as time passed the feral government found ways to mollify the states and the people. All of which we already know, so...
The question of course becomes what, if anything can we do about it. Will the states be instrumental or more likely necessary players in any efforts to regain their and coincidentally our sovereignty? Given recent events, it's my personal opinion now more than ever the states acting on their own behalf or on behalf of their citizens may in fact be our last and best hope to rechain the beast, if it's to happen at all. Your mileage may vary.
If you more or less agree with this premise, how can we proceed? How can we support, or better yet, encourage the 10th amendment resolutions/bills presently within several states AND encourage more timid states to adopt such an idea? What's in it for them??? Outside of the potential bludgeoning by the fedguv, what are the possible benefits and pitfalls states might encounter if they decide they want to assert the 10th amendment duties and rights?
For my part, this is essentially the direction I would like to point any discussion and apply our collective brain power. Do we have a chance?
A “Right” is a statement of authority. The attendant “Power(s)” is the means by which that authority is made manifest or given effect. This is in perfect harmony with the Declaration of July 4, 1776, where our progenitors made it quite clear that ALL Men (the People) are endowed by their Creator (not man-made institutions) with Certain, (unambiguous, firmly fixed) Rights (authority), and that governments are instituted to secure that authority, and that these man-made institutions derive their just “Powers” (not “Rights”) from the Consent of the People (no Consent = no Lawful Power(s)).
Welcome to Free Republic.
Just before the American Revolution Samuel Adams said: “If ye love wealth better than freedom; the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel, nor you arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. And may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Americans today do not seem to understand why we celebrate the Fourth of July. It’s not about sparklers and firecrackers, it’s about remembering the real bullets and real rockets fired in offense of freedom; it’s about remembering those who dedicated their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor and were willing to give their all so that we could live in freedom.
And if we lose our freedom and, therefore, lose our country, how will our posterity remember our contribution to their enslavement — with a day of silence?
Thank You!!
Not quite true. The Constitution has many statements like “The Congress shall have power to...”
But the Tenth Amendment does make clear that whatever it doesn’t say the federal government can do, the federal govenrment CAN’T do.
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.