The Preamble to the Bill of Rights stated the purpose of those Amendments with an appropriate tone of warning, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." Further restrictive clauses, for an already limited government, to prevent abuse of power.
Article VI is one of the restrictive clauses in the original document. It clearly says that all "Officers, both of the United States and the several States, --" shall be "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding."
Among these restrictive clauses was the Tenth Amendment, which reserved all powers, not enumerated in the Constitution, either to the States or to the people. It was a simple one-liner. Nothing could be clearer.
Clear indeed. It says, boldly:
" --- 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. -- "
Note that prohibitions are placed on States, not only in the original document, but in its Amendments, as enumerated.
The Tenth Amendment was the key to Federalism. Its constraints empowered a hierarchy of representative governments with accountability kept local to the people, which effectively kept injustices confined to the smallest possible scope, albeit with little recourse.
Recourse is enumerated in Article III, whereby the USSC has jurisdiction to try all cases " -- arising under this Constitution, -- ".
The Tenth also permitted wide differences in State laws. If the people of a State wanted a government religion, the Tenth Amendment permitted that.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
If a State wanted to regulate speech, or to socialize private property, the Constitution was mute.
Not true. Abridging of speech is prohibited to States under the 1st, as per Article VI.
None of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the national government in Federal Court.
So claimed the States rightists. In reality violations of all of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be brought before the Supreme Court, if they found cause under the Constitution to hear them.
If the people didn't like the government of a particular State and couldn't change it, their principal recourse was the freedom to move and apply their energies in another State.
No, -- their "principle recourse" against a rogue state was the "Law of the Land". If that recourse failed, the right to rebel came into play. - We had just fought a revolution against a tyrant that said 'love English law or leave'. -- It is amazing for you to claim we gave our State governments that same tyrannical power, enshrined in our Constitution.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
That law only applies to the national government. If you look at a number of early State constitutions, there are direct references to a Christian God therein.
Only to the degree that the Constitution allowed. If a law exceeded the authority granted to the national government, it was void.
Clear indeed. It says, boldly: " --- 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. -- "
Only to the degree that the Constitution allowed. If a law exceeded the authority granted to the national government, it was void. The Federal government, at that time was prohibited from applying the powers you describe in this post as pursuant to Article VI.
Recourse is enumerated in Article III, whereby the USSC has jurisdiction to try all cases " -- arising under this Constitution, -- ".
Only pursuant to the powers granted to the Feds in that Constitution.
The Tenth also permitted wide differences in State laws. If the people of a State wanted a government religion, the Tenth Amendment permitted that.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
Only for officers of the national government. As evidence, I posit to you the numerous State Constitutions that specifically endorse a Christian God.
If a State wanted to regulate speech, or to socialize private property, the Constitution was mute.
Not true. Abridging of speech is prohibited to States under the 1st, as per Article VI.
We disagree. It only prohibited Congress. The 14th Amendment extended First Amendment protection to the States.
None of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the national government in Federal Court.
So claimed the States rightists. In reality violations of all of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be brought before the Supreme Court, if they found cause under the Constitution to hear them.
Not until the 14th Amendment unless the case involved Federal jurisdiction.
If the people didn't like the government of a particular State and couldn't change it, their principal recourse was the freedom to move and apply their energies in another State.
No, -- their "principle recourse" against a rogue state was the "Law of the Land". If that recourse failed, the right to rebel came into play. - We had just fought a revolution against a tyrant that said 'love English law or leave'. -- It is amazing for you to claim we gave our State governments that same tyrannical power, enshrined in our Constitution.
Most people moved before they would hire a lawyer.
Gentlemen, clean-up in Aisle 41, please. You know who it is. He's back yet again.