ARTICLE 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.
Yes, but Amendments 13, 14, and 15, along with the related Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Civil Rights Act of 1873, were simply overruled by the Supreme Court in favor of the state legislatures' rights to segregate black people and otherwise limit their voting rights and movements.
That it says something in the Constitution is interesting, but it does not seem to be binding in the United States. What the Constitution IS, in the American structure, is what the Supreme Court says it is.
I think that this is unsound.
I think that what the law is ought to be what the elected Congress says it is, and that the courts should merely be the executors of the law. But this is Civil Law thinking, and it is not at all in keeping with the way that the United States is constitutionally structured.
I see no way, within the US system as currently constituted, that decisions such as today's, or the others to which people have so negatively reacted, can be avoided. It is the nature of the system itself.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution does indeed say those words. But those words MEAN what the Supreme Court says they mean, and no more nor less.
I do not think this is good, but I acknowledge that it is the way it is. AntiGuv has taught me that it is the way it is because the American people ultimately WANT it that way: they do not overturn these acts, and perhaps they would not support either Congress or the US President directly overruling and nullifying any Supreme Court decision.
Place mark.