Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: An.American.Expatriate; yall
The Tenth Amendment reads:

"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. "

The clause "are reserved to the states respectively" further supports the claim of states "rights".

Powers, not rights, -- as you later acknowledge:

Thus, although totally unnecessary in a Constitution which granted only limited powers to the Federal Government, the Tenth Amendment could read:
"Any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government, nor any power specifically prohibited by the constitution to the states, is retained by the states individually, or by the people."

I have no problem with your alternative 'reading', and I'd bet most rational people wouldn't. -- After all States are just a large grouping of individual people, -- and I think we can all agree the groups have no 'rights'/powers over & above the rights of its individual members.

92 posted on 06/08/2004 1:16:24 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human be" -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Powers, not rights, -- as you later acknowledge

Agreed. Although it is a fine line. If I as a person grant you a power of attorney, that grant gives you a power (and a right to use that power). I can of course rescind that grant of power thus denying you both the power and the right to wield it.

Our "rights" are, as you have stated, inalienable. This means that a government does not have the right (power) to infringe upon them. However, if we the people, were to abdicate a power to the government (state or federal), then that government has the "right" to use that grant. Of course, we must be careful in what we abdicate - which is the reason the federal government was limited in it's powers in the first place!

I really don't see where the controversy is. The Constitution, other than when referring to "archaic" terms such as Letters of Marque is quite easy to read and understand (unless you are a liberal and still don't understand the meaning of the word "is" [not directed at any person on this board!!!]). When I consider that over 2 centuries of USSC Decisions seem to point in exactly the opposite direction from what I can see and read with my own eyes, I find it difficult NOT to reach for the Reynolds Wrap!

97 posted on 06/08/2004 2:07:33 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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