What good is the tenth amendment?

[NoStateofMind]

If all they have have to do is put whatever is in question under the commerce clause? Did the founders put it in the Bill of Rights for shits and giggles?

 

[glenn1]

If all they have have to do is put whatever is in question under the commerce clause? Did the founders put it in the Bill of Rights for shits and giggles?

It allows us to not give a shit about how much other areas of the country fuck themselves up (e.g. Detroit, Camden NJ, Mississippi, etc); since they are given the right under the 10A to do whatever idiotic thing they want without the rest of us having an obligation to bail their sorry asses out.

 

[werepossum]

Well, it was great until we discovered that the Commerce Clause actually grants powers straight from G-d and makes the rest of the Constitution moot. Now of course it's useless.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, they did put the 10th Amendment in for shits and giggles. Madison rejected requests to make it more specific, reasoning that there needed to be implied powers for the national government. He only wrote the Federalist Papers to trick the State legislatures into voting for it. They never would've voted for it if they had actually known that the Bill of Rights was going to be so weak.

The 5th Amendment is also a joke. What the hell is "just compensation" supposed to mean?

 

[Craig234]

I've long discussed the 9th and 10th, their limited use in Supreme Court decisions where they are seeming to be ignored much of the time.

We don't see a lot of cases where the amendments are cited to oppose the federal authority to do something.

They don't seem to have the effect they were intended to have.

When the constitution was passed, there was a debate between limiting the federal government's power by identifying certain specific rights that were ones they wanted to make sure were not infringed rather than leaving them as 'reserved rights' not listed, or whether listing some rights would undermine others.

They tried to resolve this by doing both, listing specific rights in a bill of rights but also being clear that unspecified rights mattered, with the 9th and 10th.

But their fears seem to have been confirmed, with the specified rights seeming to get a lot more court protection than the unlisted rights.

In theory, rights in the other amendments shouldn't need to be listed - for example, the 'freedom from unreasonable search and seizure' should exist under the 9th/10th amendments and could be asserted based on them, but it seems likely the right gets much more protection by being listed specifically in the 4th.

You would think there could be a lot of rights the people would argue for under the 9th and 10th but I've found few.

The only applications of the 10th that seem to be occurring seem to involve the federal government compelling a state government to do something, such as involving environmental waste or gun background checks; but this debate seems to have the radical right-wing justices saying the federal government cannot pass laws that are needed to carry out things that are powers in the constitution. They are winning their cases, though, with slim 5 (sometimes 6) vote margins.

 

[nick1985]

There is nothing liberals hate more than the 10th amendment. With the 2nd coming in a close second.

 

[matt0611]

Yes, according to the left the federal government can do anything and pass any law that they want as long its for the "general welfare". Translation: Anything they say so. Because anything at all can be argued to be for the general welfare. And I mean anything.

Of course, this is a complete perversion of this clause in the constitution but since the supreme court said its ok for the federal government do basically anything after FDR stacked the court, well its just fine now don't you know?

Don't question this either ok? questioning this is crazy!
And if you question it well you're just cooky!
The court would never rule to give the feds more authority in the constitution than it says! Never!

Why would the federal government grant itself more power to itself than it was supposed to have?
It would never do such a thing!
Don't you know? The government is "us" and its just out to help you and protect you!

Of course, the 10th amendment is clear as crystal and refutes all this bullshit.
Remember when the federal government had add an amendment to outlaw alcohol?!!? LOL
Yeah...at least the federal government was honest then.
They knew they had no authority to outlaw it without changing the constitution.

Now they just do whatever they want under the "commerce clause" (another great perversion) and the "general welfare".
What things go on in this country that don't involve commerce or welfare? LOL.
The 10th amendment is completely and utterly ignored today.

 

[MotF Bane]

The Tenth exists under the theory that this country would be lead by good and honorable individuals who didn't seek to extend the government's power in every possible manner. Oops.

 

[piasabird]

States need to start refusing to allow the federal government to have power that it just takes for granted. As economics becomes tougher, the states will start refusing to accept this abuse of federal power.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, according to the left the federal government can do anything and pass any law that they want as long its for the "general welfare". Translation: Anything they say so. Because anything at all can be argued to be for the general welfare. And I mean anything.

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Of course, this is a complete perversion of this clause in the constitution but since the supreme court said its ok for the federal government do basically anything after FDR stacked the court, well its just fine now don't you know?

Uh, FDR, facing a ridiculous right-wing court, tried to add justices to let the country have a better court that didn't block programs for their ideology.

But, it didn't pass, contrary to your claim.

 

[nick1985]

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.



Uh, FDR, facing a ridiculous right-wing court, tried to add justices to let the country have a better court that didn't block programs for their ideology.

But, it didn't pass, contrary to your claim.

100% of what you say is total bullshit.

 

[matt0611]

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.



Uh, FDR, facing a ridiculous right-wing court, tried to add justices to let the country have a better court that didn't block programs for their ideology.

But, it didn't pass, contrary to your claim.

Wow you are a master of spin!
Yes yes, ridiculous right-wing court blah blah ideology blah blah only trying to help blah blah.

Yes they burned crops and slaughtered animals while people starved because of the FDRs agricultural adjustment act.

But they were only trying to help!

Same bullshit excuses. Save it craig.

The 1930s was the beginning of the monstrous power-grabbing modern federal government. Everyone knows this.

 

[Schadenfroh]

With The Commerce Clause combined with providing for The Common Defense and Promotion of the General Welfare, you can justify anything. The constitution is truly a living document with the proper interpretation of those portions and you can basically grant the federal government whatever powers politicians wish, all you have to do is threaten to increase the number of justices if the courts try something or say that a man growing grain to feed his chickens should not be allowed as it impacts interstate commerce.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/volpe/newdeal/court.html

Under the guise of easing the backlog of cases that faced the "aged, overworked justices," Roosevelt intended to ask Congress for the power to appoint one additional judge to the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court) for every justice who had reached the age of seventy but declined to retire. While his ostensible purpose was to increase the efficiency of the judiciary, it was clear that Roosevelt was targeting six of the nine Supreme Court justices who had challenged his domestic programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

 

[Jaskalas]

If all they have have to do is put whatever is in question under the commerce clause? Did the founders put it in the Bill of Rights for shits and giggles?

Bill of Rights, that antiquated list of things the Gov cannot do? That pisses Obama and company off, they want it to be an affirmative list of things the Gov does to you.

After all, to them, the entirety of the constitution reads: "For the general welfare, everything necessary and proper". End of story. When the Gov is the ultimate authority and deity you don't need the 10th amendment, for nothing is left for the peons to decide anyway.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Constitution was intended to be a living document. It gave Congress control of the State militias FFS.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There is nothing liberals hate more than the 10th amendment. With the 2nd coming in a close second.

The second coming of what?? Jesus??

 

[NoStateofMind]

The second coming of what?? Jesus??

Are you that daft? Or just trolling?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Are you that daft? Or just trolling?

Both!

 

[Fern]

In some ways I think the 10th amendment has exposed a flaw in our FF's plan.

The SCOTUS is part of the federal government, so in effect the federal government is in charge of determining how far it's own powers go. The effect has been obvious.

The 14th amendment in large part overrules the 10th too.

Fern