fred rosenberger wrote:
I think smaller is better.
My larger point is - why is giving power to a State the right answer?
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
J. Kevin Robbins wrote: before the federal government started grabbing power that it wasn't entitled to, using things like the Interstate Commerce Clause.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Bear Bibeault wrote:It goes both ways -- some states (cough, Alabama, cough) think it's OK to just ignore federal constitutional rulings.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
fred rosenberger wrote:
J. Kevin Robbins wrote: before the federal government started grabbing power that it wasn't entitled to, using things like the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Woah...who says they aren't entitled to it?
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
J. Kevin Robbins wrote:
fred rosenberger wrote:
J. Kevin Robbins wrote: before the federal government started grabbing power that it wasn't entitled to, using things like the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Woah...who says they aren't entitled to it?
The tenth amendment.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
J. Kevin Robbins wrote:The tenth amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
J. Kevin Robbins wrote: so I've split this thread into a new topic. I'll be back to comment later;
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Stevens Miller wrote:
Kevin, I think this goes to you: what's the best example you have of a power asserted by the United States that is actually a power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
fred rosenberger wrote:
So if Congress says "We have the power to do this under the commerce clause", who is to say they don't? I would think it would be the SCotUS, not you or me.
Do you have an example of Congress doing something against the SCotTUS ruling?
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
J. Kevin Robbins wrote:Madison and Jefferson also believed that the states had the power to interpret the constitution, and nullify any federal laws that they deemed to be unconstitutional.
James Madison wrote:It appears still farther, that the efficacious interposition contemplated by the Legislature; was a concurring and cooperating interposition of the States, not that of a single State.
James Madison wrote:On the other hand what more dangerous than nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues to make, either in its original shape, or in the disguises it assumes. Nullification has the effect of putting powder under the Constitution and Union, and a match in the hand of every party to blow them up at pleasure: And for its progress, hearken to the tone in which it is now preached; cast your eye on its increasing minorities in most of the Southern States without a decrease in any one of them. Look at Virginia herself and read in the Gazettes, and in the proceedings of popular meetings, the figure which the anarchical principle now makes, in contrast with the scouting reception given to it but a short time ago.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
J. Kevin Robbins wrote:Obamacare; where does it says Congress can pass a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance?
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
J. Kevin Robbins wrote:Not many things were explicitly reserved to the states and that's the problem.
The undercutting of the tenth amendment started with the 14th amendment because state laws allowed slavery.
The 16th and 17th amendments gave even more power to Congress
Let's take a hot topic; abortion. I can't find anything in the constitution where it says Congress has the authority to rule on this issue. It was the courts who decided.
Obamacare; where does it says Congress can pass a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance? They tried to claim that this is an interstate commerce issue, but that's a weak argument at best, so now they claim that it's just a tax because the constitution does give Congress the power to levy taxes. Eighteen states have challenged the constitutionality of this, so it's up the courts.
There are many more examples, but my real point is that the federal government has become too big and too powerful and needs to be reigned in. Using the tenth amendment as it was intended is one possible way of doing that. Although, I'm not hopeful about any attempts to reform our government. Way too much inertia.
I wish the founders had been more explicit in their choice of words in many of the amendments. It's the vagueness of terms like "militia" (2nd amd.) that has caused so much grief.
Alternate Founders with OCD wrote:Congress shall make no law requiring or prohibiting the practice of Christianity or Judaism; or abridging the right to say things out loud, but only in your indoor-voice, or of putting any words in ink onto paper (but Franklin's trashy doodles are his problem); or the right of the people to stand quietly in one place at the same time, and to send us e-mails we can ignore in any quantity they like, after Al Gore invents the internet.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:Madison did not believe that individual states could pick and choose federal statutes to annul.
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
Stevens Miller wrote:
You mean 13th, right? I know we're not defending slavery, but I think this observation actually shows that 10A was not being undercut. Without 10A, 13A wouldn't have been necessary. Congress could have illegalized slavery by statute. But, the states would have been in good position to argue that Congress lacked that power, and that their 10A rights were superior to any such statute. By incorporating abolition into the constitution itself, 10A remained respected.
The 16th and 17th amendments gave even more power to Congress
Agreed. But, weren't those amendments ratified by the states?
Let's take a hot topic; abortion. I can't find anything in the constitution where it says Congress has the authority to rule on this issue. It was the courts who decided.
Sure, but they weren't deciding a question of federal statutory constitutionalism. They were deciding a question of state law under the constitution.
Obamacare; where does it says Congress can pass a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance? They tried to claim that this is an interstate commerce issue, but that's a weak argument at best, so now they claim that it's just a tax because the constitution does give Congress the power to levy taxes. Eighteen states have challenged the constitutionality of this, so it's up the courts.
Well, they claim it's a tax because that's the basis upon which SCOTUS upheld the law. Yeah, the ICC defense was a loser, but that only goes to show that not everything the Congress does requires reliance on the ICC, doesn't it? Not sure which 18 states could be challenging this, as the constitutionality of the ACA penalty as a tax was upheld in NFIP v. Sebelius. Do you have a different case in mind?
There are many more examples, but my real point is that the federal government has become too big and too powerful and needs to be reigned in. Using the tenth amendment as it was intended is one possible way of doing that. Although, I'm not hopeful about any attempts to reform our government. Way too much inertia.
It certainly would be interesting to hear what the authors of The Federalist Papers would have to say, if they could see what we've become.
I wish the founders had been more explicit in their choice of words in many of the amendments. It's the vagueness of terms like "militia" (2nd amd.) that has caused so much grief.
Oh, I dunno... the vagueness you see may be more in the nature of deliberate generalization, for the purpose of avoiding a document so specific as to quickly become obsolete.....Sure, we argue endlessly over what some of the generalized/vague terms mean, but I rather think that's a healthy consequence of their decision not to be too picky.
I think your concern, from what I've been reading, isn't really with the state of 10A. Seems to me that you're more concerned with judicial review. If so, we can talk about that too, but we'll need another thread...
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
The 16th and 17th amendments gave even more power to Congress
Agreed. But, weren't those amendments ratified by the states?
Actually, several states never ratified the 17th, including yours, Virginia.
Let's take a hot topic; abortion. I can't find anything in the constitution where it says Congress has the authority to rule on this issue. It was the courts who decided.
Sure, but they weren't deciding a question of federal statutory constitutionalism. They were deciding a question of state law under the constitution.
Okay, I have to admit you lost me here. I can't think in "lawyerese" enough to understand the difference so I'll just concede this point.
Obamacare; where does it says Congress can pass a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance? They tried to claim that this is an interstate commerce issue, but that's a weak argument at best, so now they claim that it's just a tax because the constitution does give Congress the power to levy taxes. Eighteen states have challenged the constitutionality of this, so it's up the courts.
Well, they claim it's a tax because that's the basis upon which SCOTUS upheld the law. Yeah, the ICC defense was a loser, but that only goes to show that not everything the Congress does requires reliance on the ICC, doesn't it? Not sure which 18 states could be challenging this, as the constitutionality of the ACA penalty as a tax was upheld in NFIP v. Sebelius. Do you have a different case in mind?
I may have the number wrong; I was reading about this one.
It certainly would be interesting to hear what the authors of The Federalist Papers would have to say, if they could see what we've become.
I suspect they are whirling dervishly in their graves.
I've just always been frustrated by the constant debate over "militia" and wish they had picked a better phrase like "all legal citizens" or something.
I think your concern, from what I've been reading, isn't really with the state of 10A. Seems to me that you're more concerned with judicial review. If so, we can talk about that too, but we'll need another thread...
Yeah, we might be wandering off into the ditch, but my real concern is a monolithic federal government that is becoming more and more intrusive into our lives and our businesses. Supporting states rights seems to be the only way to push back against the federal juggernaut.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:
But, I'm open-minded. Whenever anyone wants to suggest a sweeping change to the structure of government in America, I always ask the same question: can you offer me an example, present-day or historical, of a successful implementation of the alternative you have in mind? My friends who are communists particularly hate it when I do that (and thank-you for that, Kim Jong-un ). But communists are idiots. Not everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, so I ask this question in complete sincerity. Anyone who can show me superior alternatives gets my attention. Got anything in mind?
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
Nothing up my sleeve ... and ... presto! A tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|