Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur; billbears
 
It says it in the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says...

What the Ninth and Tenth Ammendments say is:

ARTICLE (IX.)


      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
    be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                                ARTICLE (X.)

      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.
 

So, if the elected officials of the Federal Government represent the People and the States (the House of  Representatives for the People, the Senate for the States (at least usta be), and the President for both), and the People have a right as noted in the 9th, and the power as noted in the 10th, and the States have the power, as noted in the 10th, can they not have their representatives do most anything on which they can agree among themselves?  At least as long as it doesn't violate a right?  Was not the Federal Government acting in accordance with the agreement of the People of the Northern States who at least thought they had the right and power to hold the Southern States in the Union?  Would that not explain Social Security, and HUD and the EPA and a host of things "we" don't like?

Please argue against this.  Considering the way people have tended  to exercise their rights and powers for the last little while, it kind of scares me.

44 posted on 03/12/2003 5:48:12 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
Please argue against this.

I'd be glad too except I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My position has been that the southern acts of secession were illegal. Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress. That is how the Constitution requires new states be added, that's how the Constitution requires any change in the status of a state be authorized, so that should be the minimum requirement for leaving. Add to the the fact that the Constitution also forbids a number of unilateral actions by states where the interest of other states may be impacted. So it would seem that the 10th Amendment would argue against the southern actions not in favor of them.

48 posted on 03/13/2003 3:55:19 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson