Replies

I have asked often for those believing them significant to point to the legal cases indicating my error. So far, none have been able too.

Try these, there are many more:
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)
McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)
State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20 (1922)
A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)
Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946) Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968)
United Transportation Union v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 455 U.S. 678 (1982)
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1982)
Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990)
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000)
(my favorite, see Justice Thomas' dissent) US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995)

How do you figure the determination that the constitution covered the issue in Gibbons to be a support of the 9th or 10th? It upheld federal supremacy over interstate commerce.

Martin also is not relevent to the irrelevency of the 9th or 10th.

Thornton also appears to address nothing relevent in this discussion. I have not been able to access it easily but apparently it involves the right of states to place term limits upon their elected officials. If that is the case with the ruling, there is nothing new in it to me, I have consistently maintained that states have the authority to make rules and laws which affect their residents only. Actually the refusal by the USSC to allow states to term limit elected federal officials is additional proof of the illegality of secession. States can't even term limit a Congressman but CAN secede? Right, that makes a lot of sense.

Given the track record of the above cases in not supporting your contention, I'll pass on the others for now. My time is quite limited in dealing with these long settled issues.