Replies

What on earth are you pushing? That is NOT what the 10th amendment says. In any case, consider: (1) if, because of the Tenth Amendment, the states retain all powers not delegated to the federal government, and (2) if the federal government has not been delegated the power to prohibit the secession of a state, then (3) it must follow that each state retains the power to prohibit the secession of a state, and Ohio has the power to prohibit the secession of South Carolina. What's wrong with that idea?

Because States didn’t delegate powers to other States. And States did not attempt to force States back into the Union against their will; the Federal government did, thus usurping an undelegated power.

The people of the several States delegated a specified and limited portion of their sovereignty to the newly created Federal government. Over and over in the States ratification conventions, opponents of the new constitution were concerned that the Federal governments would claim powers beyond what the States specifically delegated. Federalists said this was false, that the only powers that the Federal government could legitimately claim were specifically laid out in the Constitution. All others remained with the States.

Just for the sake of argument, if your hypothesis is correct, then there would have been some move to coerce Rhode Island and North Carolina into the Union after Washington’s inaugural. The first thing Washington probably did was call out the militia and march on Raleigh and Providence and forces these ne’er-do-wells to get back in line. Did this happen? If it did, I’m sure you can produce the appropriate documentation. You were quoting Justice Scalia earlier. Consider also: 'The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.'' United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

You really have to stand this quote on its head to get it to support your contention. What this says is exactly what the Tenth Amendment already says: The Federal government has no legitimate right to exercise any power or authority that is not specifically delegated in the Constitution from the people of the States to the Federal government. Anti-Federalists were concerned that someone in the future might try to assume some powers that were not intended to be granted by the original holders of sovereignty, the people of the States. (Now where would the Anti-Federalists get that idea?), so the Federalists assured them that this would never be the case, and to firm up the commitment, they included the IX and X Amendments.

Respectfully,

D J White