I am not debating whether the people or the states have retained rights outside of the Constitution. They clearly do.
But the Federal government is constrained by the constitution as to what rights, powers, regulation, etc. it can exercise. The Constitution outlines those specifically and for the United States government to exercise more than what is specifically in there requires another amendment that specifically states it...otherwise it is illegal by definition.
But if I understand you, you don’t believe that one of those retained rights is the right to task the Federal Government in its capacity as their agent-employee-servant to do the people’s will, absent any prohibition.
But the Federal government is constrained by the constitution as to what rights, powers, regulation, etc. it can exercise.
Agreed (letting pass the matter of whether or not the Federal Government has rights.)
The Constitution outlines those specifically and for the United States government to exercise more than what is specifically in there requires another amendment that specifically states it...otherwise it is illegal by definition.
Meaning the Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren’t sufficient for authorization as I laid out. Nor would be an amendment that merely stated: “the right of the people to task the Federal Government to do their will in its capacity as their agent, employee and servant, shall not be infringed save by prohibition elsewhere in the Constitution.” Such an amendment would also have to say “and the Federal Government shall comply with such taskings when they are executable.” Or something like all that.
I tried to clarify and reiterate in my number 54. (From your number 55)
I understand there are limitations on the Federal Government and I understand that you believe an amendment is required. I believe that an amendment would be required for the Federal Government to act unilaterally beyond what’s delegated in the Constitution. But I am addressing the Federal Government acting at the will of the people, not unilaterally. And I am not convinced that all that is required is not already in place.
This looks like a matter of “if it is not permitted it is forbidden” versus “if it is not forbidden it is permitted.”
One view concentrates on restraining the Federal Government to keep it from imposing on the people’s freedom (which is a noble view.) The other view concentrates on the people’s freedom to have the government do what they want so far as possible (which view brings a certain level of discomfort.)
What you are writing about as a restraint on the government I am seeing as a restraint on the people.
But I need to think about all this some more.
(If it is worth anything to you, I had a lot of trouble with this post. I had several false starts which I could see leading to a dearth spiral of post and counter post without any enlightenment. I generally try to avoid that. So far I’ve been given food for thought even if my thoughts have not led to the same conclusions as the thoughts of others.)