Replies

Miller interestingly quotes historian David Musto as having observed that until the late nineteenth century, the federal government laid no claim to such regulatory powers; such things were the responsibilities of the states, or the people. Miller is correct to invoke the Tenth Amendment in his argument, but this Amendment was all but destroyed during the War Between the States, after which federal political hegemony was established.

Miller also correctly observed that the "progressive era" federal regulatory agencies "were profoundly unconstitutional and un-American" and are "the elder bedmates of the coercive, expansionist politics of modern-day liberalism." Exactly. This, however, is exactly the position that neo-conservatives like Alan Keyes hold.

--------------------------------------

I agree with the author about Keyes & the neo-cons.

But his underlined irrationalities about Lincoln and the 'destruction of the 10th', mystify me.

The 14th was ratifyed in 1868 to make it clear that state governments must not ignore individual rights in writing law.
-- It did not remove any 10th amendment powers from states, as the author alleges in his 'hegemony' hype. --
Amusingly, the author admits in the previous undeline that Musto observed that this federalism did not occur till very 'late' in the 1800's, which is correct.

-- Thus, -- Lincoln & the 14th had little/nothing to do with the death of states 'rights'.
The loss of these state powers had everything to do with the rise of national political parties that embraced socialist principles at both state and federal levels.

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds. -- Nothing is wrong with the constitution [that can't be easily fixed]. Everything is wrong about our political process.

Actually it did. Read his book that's been discussed in depth around here, The Real Lincoln. One of the things that happened with the 14th was that it received a no vote from the Southern states (a right of the state to turn down proposed amendments), which was followed quickly by occupation and another vote to get the 'correct' response. Two northern states were so adamant against the actions of the union that they reversed their votes on the Amendment (New Jersey and one other). The new no votes of the northern states were not counted and their original yes vote was kept

Everything is wrong about our political process.

Two things could easily fix this. I feel like I 'm beating a dead horse here but;

1.) Repeal the 17th Amendment and return a political voice to the states as the Founders intended.

Our local talk radio has lately been running (at 5:55 A.M.) the Ted Kennedy/ John McCain dog and pony show. This morning McCainiac was blubbering on about how he was elected "to represent the people of Arizona." I almost befouled my keyboard.

2.)We are not represented in the House, the people's representation.

Anybody who rationally believes that one man can represent the political will of 650,000 constituents is a statist, a useful idiot, or a moron.

Plain and simple, we are not represented today anymore than we were in the government of George III 227 years ago.

REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

Well stated - but you're missing a step. Pols in the statehouses and governors' mansions refuse to use the 10th because most voters do not want them to. The public, by an overwhelming majority, want things like the WOD, Social Security, Medicare, etc...

"The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds. --"

That's because the vote of one supreme court justice allowed treaty provisions to over-ride not only state's, rights, but individual rights as well (Migratory Bird Act). Since then, whenever the feds wanted to extend jurisdiction, it conspired with another nation(s) to create a treaty in order to circumvent the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Virtually every federal regulation on the books which infringes upon individual rights and liberties and over-rides state's rights was born of treaties. This was clearly, and continues to be, a conspired mis-application of Article VI, para 2 .

The minority opinion on the Migratory Bird Act is worthy of reading. The stampede for federal jurisdiction has been picking up steam ever since.

The states not only refused to fight the feds on this, they capitulated so fast it makes one believe the states were pushing this for a long time. Personally, I believe the states actually wanted broader powers over its Citizens, but were bound by their constitutions. What better way to unleash that power than by letting the federal government do it for them -- escaping the blame in the process. Let's not ever forget that the federal government IS the representative of the states in congress -- and the strong arm of state bullies.