Posted on 05/03/2020 4:10:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In the past few weeks, I have heard two or perhaps three interviews with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and I think the most impressive thing I have heard her say(she has said many impressive things) repeatedly is not just that she swore an oath to defend and uphold the United States Constitution, but also her State constitution.
I find this to be extremely impressive, since I find that far too often some people are willing to let themselves forget that America has more than one Constitution. As an example, here is a past article from something Noem said: ""I took an oath to uphold our state Constitution," she said,"
This is, I think, an important thing worth discussing. The Founding Fathers didn't repeal the state Constitutions - and in fact went full throttle just the opposite direction. Where some specific power is not expressly delegated, it's the 10th amendment. Uphold the State Constitutions, these are great things! Where there is an entry in the enumerated powers list, well, ok in that instance the U.S. Constitution is supreme. The point is even directly made at the Constitutional Convention by Roger Sherman:
Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient. There are many cases where juries are proper which can not be discriminated. The Legislature may be safely trusted.
If the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed, then the whole documents aren't repealed either. There's no Bill of Rights out there that just floats without being attached to a Constitutional document. It doesn't work that way.
Now, there could be a case to make that 51 constitutions may be too big of a net, but every American who claims to be a constitutionalist should in fact be just as equally of a protector and advocate of their State Constitution as of the U.S. Constitution. So at a minimum, every constitutionalist should claim 2. What exactly is the intent of the 10th amendment then?
NO, you forgot something.
10th Amendment
"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. "
When state constitutions were drafted, they were very careful to adhere to the US constitution of that time, the exception being Texas.
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/txgov1-2/two-constitutions-a-comparison
Likewise, Louisiana was organized under the French Civil Code for the law, so many of their organizational terms are different, but as the years go by they are more in conformity with the US Common Law.
Hawaii became a state without any native treaties, which is why there are no native reservations there. However, Indian reservations operate under US, some state and tribal law, the last of which is very long overdue for revision by both the US government and the tribes, as many of those treaties are irrational.
The constitution specifies some rights; it also imposes some limits on the powers of the federal government. There are times that I wish Madison had made that distinction.
The constitution does not grant any rights.
The words: “Bill of Rights” seems to confuse people.
The original, unamended Constitution was a remarkable achievement, establishing a revolutionary structure of government that put power in the hands of the people.
The Bill of Rights built on that foundation, protecting our most cherished American freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and due process of law.
As you can see, the amendments, known as the “Bill of Rights” is actually a Protection of Individual Rights, not a grantor of rights!
(Those are God given)
“Congress shall make no law...”, “Shall not be infringed...”, “Shall not be violated ...”
(Notice a trend here?)
The first 10 amendments, which we refer to as the “Bill of Rights”, were the subject of much debate at the time.
The question was whether or not the amendments were necessary and that there was nothing in the constitution that allowed the federal government to constrain any of these rights.
Hamilton did not support the addition of a bill of rights because he believed that the constitution wasn’t written to limit the people.
This is why the Bill of Rights is often referred to as a bill of negative rights.
All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government.
Such limits are known as negative rights.
Our “Rights” are granted by God and are known as “Inalienable Rights.”
Well, in Federalist #84 he says something else. I just can't agree with your assertion. Maybe I've read too many of Hamilton's writings.
Some of the Amendments penned by Madison recognized the rights that the citizens possess. Read them. Rights. He referred to the rights of people in some parts as he placed limitations on the powers of government. In other areas he simply put limitations on power or actions of government. Madison didn't want the BOR; his 180 change in direction was because he understood (correctly) that without the upcoming amendments, the Constitution's ratification was in danger.
Seems to me there ought to be concerns over states violation of the Constitution’s privileges and immunities clauses.
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.