Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Tenth Amendment a Waste of Ink?

Via Buy-A-Gun Day

 An agressive attack on the Tenth Amendment was posted recently at RedState entitled The Tenth Amendmenters and it states;

“There is much talk here on these pages and on other conservative sites that the Tenth Amendment is some broad grant of state’s rights. Many argue that because of the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot wade into areas that traditionally have been the province of state governments. However, to assert that argument is to read way too much into the Amendment as stated.”
And further the Federalists bowed to the demands of the Anti-Federalists;

“As such, they viewed a Bill of Rights as being superfluous within the constitutional framework. Still, to abate these unwarranted fears (in their estimation) they gave into the Anti-Federalists and agreed that the first Congress would take up a Bill of Rights. In fact, the first eight amendments are essentially lifted from state constitutions in existence at the time.

 Almost as afterthoughts, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added.” — The Tenth Amendmenters
Afterthoughts? For an “afterthought” to become an amendment this is what is required;


  1. Please post another comment to verify I got this BS under control.

    Progress is over rated.

  2. Not sure what the BS is but progress is indeed over rated.

    Unfortunately several governors seem to think the tenth amendment give states the right to do things to us that the feds can't. Romney's nonsense that the Massachusetts mandate is constitutional because a state enacted it for instance. Some use the argument that the tenth amendment allows states or localities to restrict our second amendment rights which is of course nonsense. The tenth amendment is about protecting the states and therefore its people from the federal government.

  3. protecting the states and therefore its people from the federal government.

    Well, that depends on what the meaning of is is........:)

  4. The 10th Amendment doesn't give the states any rights - it merely prohibits the from usurping them.


    The *FACT* is that - at its inception in 1789 - the Federal Constitution limited only the Federal .gov. The STATES were to be bound by THEIR constitutions.

    Like much else, this was all f***ed by Abe The Tyrant. When they began "incorporating" various Fed.Con. Amendments to the states, things REALLY went downhill.

    Even if one is ignorant of History, a simple reading of the document itself should make things clear.

    Take the 1A for example: "*CONgress* shall make no law..."
    You'll note that it doesn't say "NO LAW SHALL BE MADE BY ANY GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL..." Since CONgress is the only Federal body able to make law, the statement amounted to "There shall be no Federal law regarding an establishment of religion..." and so on.

    The 2A OTOH used very different language - it said "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (PERIOD) - and I believe (and our Founders' other writings support the conclusion) that THIS applied to government AT ALL LEVELS whether Fed, State, County or municipal.

    Our Founders were eloquent and educated men, and when they used certain words it was deliberate.

    The FACT is that our Federal Constitution was created by the INDIVIDUAL, SOVEREIGN States and their people, primarily to limit the FEDERAL Government.

    At the time of our Constitution, there were States which had an official State religion! -- ergo claiming that the 1A applies to the states is PURE HORSE-pucky!

    Since they're no longer around to ask, we have to read what they wrote and said elsewhere on the subject.

    This is another way I know that the intent was for the 2A to have "universal" application "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms(period)" is a pretty unequivocal statement!

    We must remember that prior to ~1865 it was "theSE united States" - not "The US."

    Put another way, we were like the European Union - a conglomeration of sovereign nations that had agreed to work together for economic and defense purposes without giving up their sovereignty.

    I'm of the opinion that Our Founders intended for the States to act as "Liberty Laboratories." The nature of the Union would force them to compete for PEOPLE - CITIZENS - and thus maximize both Individual Liberty and the efficiency of Government.

    Say one state came up with some bright idea - like "Universal Health Care." SOME might say "That's a GREAT IDEA!" and MOVE to the state that had it.

    Others would say "Oh, HELL NO!!" and move OUT of said state!

    Bottom line is that the state which did the best job of providing the most efficient Government and the most Liberty would attract the most people - and the OTHERS would be forced to do things in a similar way or lose all their citizens!

    This worked fairly well for a while - until the Fed.Gov began overstepping its bounds. Obviously the calling up of an army to forcibly repatriate states which had exercised their right to secede was the END of Our Founders' Republic, and what's happened since has been little more than stripping its corpse. -- but I digress...

    The *FACT* is that Mass was PERFECTLY within their rights to implement "Romneycare" - because any citizen who didn't want to participate had the right to move to another state and escape it.

    Where can we move to escape Federal Obamacare?

    We can't - which is indisputable proof that it's unconstitutional!

    Once again - we must read the plain language of the BOR to see whether a given Amendment's intended to apply to JUST the or to States and all.

    It really isn't rocket-science!

    1. The states have no right to usurp the peoples inalienable rights. The states do not have the power to restrict gun rights nor make us purchase health insurance. The states have no more right to force us to engage in commerce than the federal government does.

  5. Madison in Federalist No. 45:
    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
    Even Hamiliton when arguing against including the "Bill of Rights" agreed that the federal government had only the Constitutionally enumerated powers.

    [A Bill of Rights] "would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

    —Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 84

    IMO the power of the states were meant to be another bulwark between the rights of the people and the enumerated powers of the federal government, this concept has been largely destroyed using the weapon of federal financing and the oppressive strings attached to it. The states ability to do their duty to protect us from federal government over reach is almost wholly gone now. Even when SCOTUS rules correctly on gun rights for instance it does so for the wrong reason by citing the 14th's equal protection clause rather than the 2nd's right to bear arms.

  6. citing the 14th's equal protection clause rather than the 2nd's right to bear arms.

    Good point.