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.

4/12/2006 4:54:08 PM

you won the c/p the 10th amendment game - is there any other purpose to this thread or can you just go ahead and delete it

4/12/2006 4:57:25 PM

?

4/12/2006 5:05:04 PM

Well, obviously there are different ways of interpreting this, and I'm not enough of a law scholar to really know the intricacies of it.

I'm just thinking, though...enacting a federal income tax required a Constitutional amendment. So did abolishing slavery.

How is slavery any different from, say, abortion, in terms of it being a states' rights issue?

The 16th Amendment (establishing a federal income tax) even makes what sounds to me like a specific clarification that the federal government is establishing that particular right, regardless of consensus from the states.

how then, for example, did the federal government enact a (now defunct) national 55 mph speed limit?


and let me be clear: whether or not Uncle Sam should have the ability to make these sorts of laws is not what I'm arguing...I'm questioning how it is Constitutional

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 5:09 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/12/2006 5:06:11 PM

My guess would be the safety clause.

Also, amendments must be ratified by the 75% of the states before they really matter. Effectively, the states consented to a federal income tax. "Why?" you ask. Sounds like a good way to kill a few minutes on Wikipedia if you ask me.

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ...]

4/12/2006 5:07:25 PM

Quote :

"or to the people."

technically, the federal government represents all of the people in the US.

4/12/2006 5:08:03 PM

citizens.

4/12/2006 5:08:47 PM

Quote :

"Effectively, the states consented to a federal income tax."

Ok, but that's not the case with either of the examples I used.

4/12/2006 5:10:39 PM

i agree - go read wikipedia

4/12/2006 5:11:53 PM

one way they hvae gotten around it is by saying "you can do it, but you wont get money from us"

So states could set the drinking age at 11, but they would lose almost all federal funding, which would be a HUGE chunk of their budgets.

4/12/2006 5:29:20 PM

ah, that's true...come to think of it, I think they did the same thing with highway funding with regard to the 55 mph speed limit.

4/12/2006 5:33:13 PM

now for the argument...

should the federal government be able to blackmail the states?

4/12/2006 5:43:58 PM

sure, why not?

4/12/2006 6:00:23 PM

Quote :

"How is slavery any different from, say, abortion, in terms of it being a states' rights issue? "

It's not, though people (on both sides) like to pretend it is. That and really most people these days have forgotten than such sweeping bans used to require a constitutional amendment. Now most people think it's normal.

Quote :

"how then, for example, did the federal government enact a (now defunct) national 55 mph speed limit? "

Presumeably the same way they do the drinking limit (do it or you don't any money)

Quote :

"technically, the federal government represents all of the people in the US."

Yes but represent does not mean have the power to do something. That was the purpose of the consitution to vest a great majority of powers in the people and the states.

Quote :

"should the federal government be able to blackmail the states?"

No. It should be a major red flag to people that the majority of their state's money is comming from the federal government. That means that too much is being paid into the federal government and not enough is being paid into the state governments. Then again, maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's odd that I pay more to the federal government than I do to the state but the state has the most imediate effect on me and should in theory require more money from any one individual.

4/12/2006 6:12:34 PM

Quote :

"now for the argument... should the federal government be able to blackmail the states?"

Absolutely not. But the rules are written such that it is legal, so there is nothing you can do...

BUT REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT!!

That's right folks. In 1913 this country ceased to be a Republic and became a purely representative democracy, with oddities to be sure, by making Senators directly electable by the people instead of appointed by state legislatures.

Repeal this amendment and power returns to the states. I think it would be a great idea, what does everyone else think?

4/12/2006 8:10:10 PM

i think it would be great. would let us get rid of dole and burr.

i really dont understand why we pay money to the federal government that is supposed to go to the states. for instance, welfare is implemented differently in each state, with each state getting a certain amount of money. why does this money go through the federal govt at all? (i would prefer a more practical answer instead of the more general/"philosophical" because the fed govt is evil or whatever answer)

4/12/2006 9:54:03 PM

^ Because if it wasn't done that way many states (particularly out west and in the south) would eliminate welfare all-together because it doesn't make sense outside of northern urban centers. Of course, this is less of an issue because the south and west are much more urbanized nowadays, a trend that was greately hindered by the presence of welfare I should point out.

The same goes for many other Federal programs such as rent subsidies/government housing/food stamps. It isn't that rural poverty doesn't exist, far from it, it just has to be treated differently and rural state legislatures realize this. Anyway, if the Federal Government didn't make all the states do it then some of the states wouldn't do it (might as well impliment ineffective social programs if someone else is paying for it).

The problem arrises, according to progressives, if the south didn't implement all the social programs of the north then northern industry would flee the high taxes by moving to the south. While this has happened anyway it would have happened faster the greater the differential.

Has this answered your question?

4/12/2006 10:52:03 PM

this thread needs more edomites

4/12/2006 11:23:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm questioning how it is Constitutional"

There are many things congress has done that is not constitutional. Sec. 8 lays out the 18 responsibilites of congress...and that's it.

"Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. introduced the Enumerated Powers Act several times. It would've required each act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act or else the bill could not go forward. Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act (HR 175) went down to three crushing defeats." --Walter Williams

4/13/2006 12:30:04 AM

Shadegg is a little crazy I think, but those American West conservatives are pretty much money in my book.

4/13/2006 3:13:05 AM

"Necessary and proper." Elastic clause, man. Learn to love it, 'cause it ain't going nowheres.

I don't think that it's a bad thing that the founding fathers realized that they may not have accounted for every contigency in human history.

4/13/2006 3:26:31 AM

^ Hmm, read the rest of the clause. "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

The clause doesn't in any way say congress can do whatever it considers necessary and proper. It says congress can do whatever it considers necessary and proper in order to fullfill its enumerated powers and responsibilities.

But you are right, the fore-fathers knew they hadn't thought of everything. That is why they invented the Amendment process. If, in fact, such unconstitutional laws are necessary and proper then the consitution should be changed to reflect that. As it is a couple more appointments to the Supreme Court from the fringe of the Republican Party and all these laws which are so necessary become unconstitutional, again. Win all the elections you want, the SCOTUS has spoken.

Even worse, if whatever we believe is necessary and proper is automatically constitutional, then the bill of rights isn't worth the paper its printed on. "We in government believe it is necessary and proper to end seditious speech." "And oh, BTW, your labor and environmental protections are neither necessary nor proper, in my mind, so they're unconstitutional."

4/13/2006 9:49:29 AM

Quote :

"Even worse, if whatever we believe is necessary and proper is automatically constitutional, then the bill of rights isn't worth the paper its printed on."

THAT'S the bigger point i was driving at.

4/13/2006 10:56:23 AM

Quote :

"That is why they invented the Amendment process."

I shudder to think what history would have looked like if we relied on that for every dubious Constitutional action or law. That process simply is not feasible for a lot of things, especially when the "enumerated powers" are varied enough and the elastic clause is vague enough to allow us to simply do it through legislation.

I'll remind you that the very people who wrote the Constitution almost immediately started doing things that, by your logic, fall outside of what their powers should have been -- this including Thomas "Cowardly Bitch" Jefferson, who screamed up and down for literal interpretation and then got elected and...not so much anymore.

Quote :

"Even worse, if whatever we believe is necessary and proper is automatically constitutional, then the bill of rights isn't worth the paper its printed on."

But we don't believe that. Nobody does. The list of things that the government can't do is quite clear and open to very little interpretation. The list of things that the government can do, however, seems a bit more vague. At the end of the day, even if we've wildly overstepped the bounds of "necessary and proper" in our legislation, it remains that the clause is there and so, presumably, we will run into the occasional act of Congress that is not specifically covered by the Constitution's list of powers.

4/13/2006 1:05:27 PM

It isn't that difficult to understand that the right to some things, like free speech, not getting searched for no reason, et cetera, were deemed so important that they needed to be enumerated, while some things, like the right to mix Cocoa Pebbles with Fruity Pebbles, while imporant, can be left to the states or people.

However, if something is so heinous, like slavery or saying I can't eat Captain Crunch, is going on in a state, I have no problem with the federal government putting a stop to that. I know a lot of people feel differently. I'm okay with that.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2006 1:23:41 PM

Quote :

"this including Thomas "Cowardly Bitch" Jefferson, who screamed up and down for literal interpretation and then got elected and...not so much anymore."

What, aside from the Louisiana Purchase, are you talking about?

4/13/2006 2:23:51 PM

Quote :

"I shudder to think what history would have looked like if we relied on that for every dubious Constitutional action or law."

It wouldn't have been that scary. You see, if we relied upon the Amendment process for every clearly unConstitutional action or law then we'd simply have fewer federal laws.

It wouldn't be that scary. For every federal agency which I call unconstitutional we already have a state agency doing the exact same job. It is my contention that no matter how riggid the constitution was enforced our world would only be marginally different.

Social Security? Clearly constitutional, all it requires is the ability to levy income taxes.
Welfare? Social programs? Again, all it requires is the ability to levy taxes (poor laws existed long before the 20th century).
Only the EPA, FDA, ATF, other regulatory agencies, and the FBI would require an amendment to give the Federal Goverment policing powers over purely in-state matters.

But then, these matters would have been debated and required approval of state legislators.

But no, that is too hard. Requiring a democratic body to obey the law is just too much to ask. We passed an amendment to outlaw alcohol, and then again to undo it, yet passing one to formalize the federal government's policing powers is just too much to ask.

4/13/2006 2:32:17 PM

Quote :

"What, aside from the Louisiana Purchase, are you talking about?"

The Purchase was a pretty fucking big deal that doesn't need you to just gloss over it, and the Barbary War (undeclared, of course) was questionable in a way still relevant today.

Quote :

"(poor laws existed long before the 20th century)"

But were they constitutional? I don't recall humanitarian feel-good handouts as being one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

Quote :

"We passed an amendment to outlaw alcohol, and then again to undo it, yet passing one to formalize the federal government's policing powers is just too much to ask."

So you're comparing something you want to something that, it is almost universally agreed, was completely and utterly retarded. Good call, that.

My problem is that the ammendment process is slow and ill-suited to times of emergency. That isn't to say that Congress is setting any speed records, but I'll take it over a tortise that hasn't moved in decades.

4/13/2006 3:07:15 PM

Oh, ok. So when Jefferson compromises the principles he campaigned on after getting elected in the strategic interests of the United States, he's a cowardly bitch, but it's just ordinary and acceptable political practice when it's any other president? Or do you have the same vitriolic nicknames for them?

What would you have done differently regarding the Louisiana Purchase? Ignore it?

4/13/2006 3:15:27 PM

Quote :

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Uh, Grumpy, congress has the right to levy taxes and the right to do with that money whatever it wants to. It can burn it in a bon-fire, give it all to me, or generally give it away to the states however it sees fit.

What it lacks is policing powers and other regulatory abilities, all of which could be granted with a single amendment.

4/13/2006 4:29:15 PM

Quote :

"So when Jefferson compromises the principles he campaigned on after getting elected in the strategic interests of the United States, he's a cowardly bitch,"

No no no no no

He's a cowardly bitch for his performance (or lack thereof) during the Revolutionary War and just his general being a wanker. I have absolutely no problem with his expansions of Presidential/Federal power. The name calling didn't have much to do with this thread, except Libertarian-types always have a huge hard-on for Jefferson and I just think he's grossly overrated. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote :

"What it lacks is policing powers and other regulatory abilities, all of which could be granted with a single amendment."

Meh, might be true. I would have no problem with such an ammendment, but I'm not going to start yelling that we need to abolish all our agencies before we get one.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2006 4:45:09 PM

It is my suggestion that we should pass just such an Amendment. Better to make our shit legal than go on teaching future generations the document can be ignored whenever convenient.

4/13/2006 5:30:46 PM

Baron v. Balitmore, holla

4/13/2006 6:15:29 PM

Quote :

"The list of things that the government can't do is quite clear and open to very little interpretation"

You would think so. So how does the Supreme Court get away with declaring that a man growing marijuana for his own use qualifies as interstate commerce and thus falls under their jurisdiction?

You would think the First Amendment is pretty clear, so how did we end up with The Campaign Finance law (or as it's called by some the "Incumbant Protection Act").

Big Dave Souter upheld campaign contribution restrictions on the grounds that big contributions would create "the perception of impropiety". Where does the Constitution allow the prohibition of impropiety?

Politicians are not just "occasionally" trying to slip unconstitutional laws by us...it's a passion with them. Every one of these types of laws passed in the name of being "necessary and proper" chip away at the protections we have from gov't tyranny. The Constitutional barriers are quite probably the only thing seperating us from the horrors of other gov't systems. If we keep finessing them away with do-good excuses, the U.S. will end up just another run-of-the mill totalitarian state.

4/13/2006 8:53:11 PM

^ Ok, as an answer and a suggestion, see the book titled How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution.

They determined it was easier to pack the court with like minded individuals than it was to actually convince everyone else of their position, which they would have had to do in order to pass an Amendment.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ,.,]

4/13/2006 9:34:18 PM

Quote :

"In the late 19th century, Justice Stephen J. Field noted in an opinion: "If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness.""

4/13/2006 11:28:13 PM

Come now, let's not be overly dramatic. By which I mean this...

Quote :

"the U.S. will end up just another run-of-the mill totalitarian state."

...is perhaps a bit silly.

But, OK, I'll address some individual points:

Quote :

"So how does the Supreme Court get away with declaring that a man growing marijuana for his own use qualifies as interstate commerce and thus falls under their jurisdiction?"

That's sketchy. It's also the Supreme Court, which has a much more complex and layered relationship with the Constitution than Congress does. There are similarities and connections between the two situations, sure, but I'm not quite convinced that we can honestly compare them in this way.

Quote :

"You would think the First Amendment is pretty clear, so how did we end up with The Campaign Finance law"

I don't recall the CFL restricting our ability to say anything, but I do make the distinction between "speech" and "throwing around more money than God."

Still, I see your point. I just don't care about it, and I mean that sincerely. At some points we are forced to chose which word in "liberal democracy" we prefer. This is one area where I tend to shy away from "liberal" and towards "democracy:" if money is deciding elections more than people are, the entire system is failing us.

You don't hesitate to point out the problem with incumbents winning too easy, but you're silent on the point of people with vast, disproportionate campaign war chests being able to sway the people with flair and occasional lies. Making a choice between one bunch of pieces of shit (the incumbents) and another (the lackeys of the super-wealthy), especially when the two groups so often overlap, is not easy.

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 3:27 AM. Reason : ]

4/14/2006 3:26:47 AM

but campaign donations are considered speech by the supreme court, you need to reconcile that fact with the fact that it is possible to restrict the ammount of speech one person can give.

4/14/2006 7:40:39 AM

Quote :

"if money is deciding elections more than people are, the entire system is failing us."

Emphasis on "IF". We have had 250 years of elections where people were free to donate however much they wanted to who-ever they wanted. Decades upon decades where the same people ran against each other with differing war-chests. As a recent book noted, titled "Freakanomics", the evidence suggests that quantity of money spending has very little impact on the democratic system.

I am attempting to quote from memory, but beyond a certain minimum point doubling your spending sways the vote approximately 1% in your direction. As most elections are not that close, spending alone cannot win an election. In the event that the election was that close then the "democracy" aspect of the system was largely indifferent as to the winner in the first place (more votes were lost or mis-placed than were swayed be campaign spending).

However, it is reaching this minimum point (beyond which spending more is largely futile) which determines incumbency. Challengers find it difficult raising even the minimum amount required to get voters to realize you exist and what you stand for.

All CFR has eliminated is the non-super rich (the super-rich have no need for fund-raising) and the non-incumbents (incumbents are known and can easily get a check from a lot of people just for asking).

It is the un-known non-rich guy who has been eliminated by campaign finance reform. How can you call this a good thing?

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2006 10:47:49 AM

the non rich unknown was eliminated years ago.
besides. all non-rich non-incumbents hate freedom, or so i hear mccain says.

4/14/2006 1:29:44 PM

Quote :

"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."

this is exactly why about half of the federal government is itself illegal. Rule by law, hardly.

4/14/2006 2:20:23 PM

I would say that 99% of all actions by congress have some language that vaguely authorizes it to take said action. Now the president... that is an entirely different thread

4/14/2006 2:24:18 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 3:18 AM. Reason : "BUT REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT!!" --- Now this, I can get behind that]

4/15/2006 3:16:26 AM

Quote :

"The list of things that the government can't do is quite clear and open to very little interpretation."

you mean like eminent domain and shit?

4/15/2006 9:24:21 AM