Posted on 07/02/2010 9:05:41 AM PDT by all the best
What is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Equally important is the question, “What is it not?”.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not define the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government. I hear this often, and am guilty of repeating it myself on occasion.
The Tenth Amendment does confirm, affirm, state -choose your verb – that however one defines the “scope of federal power,” those powers falling outside that definition are reserved to the states, period, end of story. However, as stated above, the conundrum is that the Tenth Amendment does not define the scope of federal power; the rest of the Constitution does – or is supposed to.
That fact that the rest of the Constitution fails adequately to define the scope of federal power is a testament to some very flawed judicial interpretation and to a flawed Constitution that permits untethered judges to render such incorrect decisions with little or no consequence. The Tenth Amendment is no easy fix to our woes; indeed the glaring contradiction it represents – it reserves to the states a null set of powers – indicates the problem resides deep inside the Constitution itself. This is an implicit indication of where the problem lies and needs to be fixed. However, fixing the Constitution is no easy matter. Is there another way? The answer is yes and it’s called nullification. Before continuing, for an excellent survey of flawed judicial interpretation, or more accurately, the use of judicial fiat to centralize power in the federal government using whatever means one can get away with, read Kevin Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides).
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
Until the American citizenry decides to not be nullified by voting against all political class corruption; this will continue.
What?! Why would anyone look to the 10th Amendment to define the total scope of federal power? If the 10th could do that, what would the rest of the Constitution discuss?
Bah.
null
If the Congress can treat the Constitution as though it authorizes any legislation that it deems necessary and proper and the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution finds no fault in that, the 9th and 10th Amendments simply had no purpose in the first place.
At one time, perhaps, the Constitution effectively limited the size and scope and the Federal government. Sadly, recent history confirms Rothbard’s assessment: “the Constitution has proved to be an instrument for ratifying the expansion of State power rather than the opposite. As Calhoun saw, any written limits that leave it to government to interpret its own powers are bound to be interpreted as sanctions for expanding and not binding those powers. In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be Utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State.”
the biggest restriction, in my opinion, on the federal government was the nothing could be passed due to the senate being controlled by state legislatures.
Wrong. You omitted the reservation at the end "or to the People." This is a most important clause. The People reserved authority that they did not delegate. There is also a huge battle with the States (California) concerning the exercise of abusive regulatory authority way above and beyond the limits of protecting general public safety from substantial injury to health, safety peace and morals.
FTA- “ . . . an implicit indication of where the problem lies and needs to be fixed.”
The Constitution is not the problem. Returning to a constitutional government is the solution.
The problem is “We the People”. The US Constitution was intended for a morally bound citizenry. Our current population of Looters, leeches and Political Pros-ti-tutes can never be happy living under such law.
Turn off the tax-spigot to the government and let it all wither on the vine. Stop demanding others pay for you, your chidren’s schools, your bloated public “servant” tax-supported beureaucracy.
Which, of course, is why the Progressives were staunch advocates of direct election of senators and got the 17th Amendment in annus horibilis (1913, the year that the US got the federal income tax, direct election of senators, the Federal Reserve, and President Woodrow Wilson).
By the way, a reasonable reading of Article V yields the conclusion that 17th Amendment should be considered invalid: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived it's [sic] equal Suffrage in the Senate." Ten states never ratified the 17th Amendment, thus losing their Suffrage without Consent. But that's just more evidence that the entire Constitution is a dead letter.
Virtuous people elect wise and good representatives. Good representatives make good laws and then wisely administer them. This tends to preserve righteousness. An unvirtuous citizenry tend to elect representatives who will pander to their covetous lustings. The burden of self-government is a great responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.