Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

Brutus at his absolute best. He correctly diagnosed Article 3 as a fatal flaw to any thought of this system providing “few and defined” powers. IMHO, this essay, and the others by Brutus on the same topic, are devestating. They demolish the pretentions of the “federalists”. It’s a sad thing to accept, but it’s plain and true.

•That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

This is a crucial point, from the Massachusetts amendment proposals. The framers--big government supporters all---intentionally chose NOT to "expressly delegate" powers in their new system. The Articles contained expressly delegated powers only, but the new system contained implied powers, a fact that came to light during the first Congress, in debates over the first national bank. It's another example of how Madison's "few and defined" powers claim was, in a word, rubbish.

This Mass. proposal also demonstrates, indirectly, why the 10th amendment is actually a completely worthless dead letter. Had the 10th amendment contained the words "expressly delegated", it would have meant something. As it is, it means absolutely nothing. It's a statement of sentiment with no force whatsoever.

How can the people’s right “to alter and abolish” be safeguarded against a federal political establishment dedicated to its own preservation at all costs?

By fully exercising their rights and no one else can do that for them!