[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

"You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent."


The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.

362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit


______________________________________

Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

They have played almost no part in the development of constitutional law.

Applicable only to the reservation of state authority over municipal and state laws not in conflict with the US constitution the passage of the 14th amendment removed much of whatever substance was ever in the 9th and 10th.

I find it remarkable that you understand clearly the impossibility of using those amendments as a justification of secession like most of those who normally argue WITH you, yet seem to have little comprehension of much else within the constitution. Not that I claim much less eclecticism myself.

Anytime my comments on the 9th or 10th are challenged I ask to be pointed to significant cases where they were successfully used as a constitutional defense. Be my guest.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't consider them irrelevant except as to the extent the courts have. I believe them to be protective of the rights of States and municipalities to pass laws (as long as they are in accord with the Constitution."

Show me evidence the courts don't consider them irrelevant.