Would this be in the category of a claim that since the Tenth Amendment provides as it does that all powers not specifically delegated to the fedgov are reserved to the states and people respectively, that only the states can create square circles or construct boulders so large that even the states cannot roll them up the steepest parts of the Rocky Mountains.
You appear to be striving mightily to concoct a scenario of a clash of incompatible reserved rights between states in order to justify imagining the central government to be constitutionally justified in ignoring the Tenth Amendment. In this, you fail as you must.
This is something of an academic argument in any event because the Tenth Amendment, as noted elsewhere above, has been routinely ignored for many decades but that does not change the fact that it is still a part of the constitution and has been since coming into effect on December 15, 1791.
One of the reasons for the American Revolution was a desire for a written constitution to shackle government and not to be subject to the whims of courts, legislatures or, in our case, an executive branch. Great Britain has long been governed by its "unwritten constitution" which seems to have been and to be whatever a transient majority of Parliament will say it is.
Our system is one that was intended to differ from that of the Brits at least if we read and rely on the written words of our constitution. Of course, Congress, the Executive and particularly our court system have regularly treated our constitution like toilet paper and not just the Tenth Amendment.
Obozo is actively persecuting the Roman Catholic Church and every other pro-life church by forcing payment in almost all employment provided medical insurance for surgical abortion, chemical abortion, abortion by IUD, "gender reassignment treatment and surgeries," abortifacient birth control, and a variety of other perversions. Romney did the same thing under "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. So much for Freedom of Religion in th 1st Amendment.
Our politicians and courts have regularly ignored the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Recently, the SCOTUS, in a stunning upset, having apparently gotten reading lessons and breaking out their unused copies of the constitution, have rediscovered the Second Amendment and began to enforce it.
This year's campaign recently featured the Secret Service moving College Republicans protesting VPOTUS Biden on a college campus to a "free speech zone" half a mile from Biden's speech and audience, presumably solely based on the content of their speech which is supposed to be protected activity under the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. This sort of thing has been happening with increasing regularity in recent years. It happened at Gonzaga University in Washington State in 2000 when pro-lifers tried to protest Al Gore and were put in a cattle pen a substantial distance from the crowd, again presumably because of the content of their speech.
Unlike Britain's unwritten constitution, ours was written to have a fixed meaning so as to shackle the fedgov and, on certain issues (generally contained in the first eight amendments to restrain state governments as well, at least after the enactment of the fourteenth amendment).
Show me where such a power is specifically denied them and the other states.
Would this be in the category of a claim that since the Tenth Amendment provides as it does that all powers not specifically delegated to the fedgov are reserved to the states and people respectively, that only the states can create square circles or construct boulders so large that even the states cannot roll them up the steepest parts of the Rocky Mountains.
Now who's posts are incomprehensible? But let me ask you point to me where the word 'specific' is found in the 10th Amendment? Or anywhere else in the Constitution?
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."