As Boo Radley very aptly pointed out, the question up for discussion at the moment isn't whether or not they intended limits, but where exactly those limits were and by what mechanisms those limits were established.
You asserted he's all confused, now it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is in fact correct.
He admitted, when I asked him, that it was simply his opinion.
Since you are asserting your view as factually correct, the onus is on you to prove it.
We know, at least, that the founders intended to limit the national government's authority and, hence, enacted the 10th Amendment to make clear that powers not delegated (and need I remind you that the Founders deliberately did not use the word "expressly" to qualify "delegated") to the national government wouold be reserved to the People or the States.
Now, how could anyone reasonable argue that the Founders intended for the "the People" in the 10th Amendment would mean Congress? Come on...there's nothing interesting about such a persepctive. There's nothing reasonable about it. Such a view negates the entire purpose of the 10th.
But you know that...so I don't know why you're playing this game.
I already did by noting its absurdity. The language of the 10th makes it clear that his perception/interpretation is absurd.Nobody's asked you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove, through whatever applicable language you find primarily in the Constitution and secondarily in the Declaration that OxymoronP's interpretation of the 10th Amendment is erronious.
Are you really serious here? You think there's validity to his interpretation that the 10th means that powers not delegated to the national government rest with the...Congress? Really?
The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.You asserted he's all confused, now it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is in fact correct.
And you thought it interesting to which I replied, Bunk! There's nothing interesting about an interpretation of the 10th that completely renders to point of the 10th irrelevant.He admitted, when I asked him, that it was simply his opinion.
Prove what? That's it's absurd to argue that while the Founders intended to limit the reach of the federal government and passed the 10th explicitly to limit the national government's power, the 10th really means that power not delegated by the Constitution to the Congress really resides with Congress.Since you are asserting your view as factually correct, the onus is on you to prove it.
The plain language of the Amendment renders his interpretation absurd.
Come on...is anyone debating that the Founder's intention was to create a national government to be a government of limited and enumerated powers?
You mean to tell me this is not an accepted premise any longer? The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. amendments are not at all intended to be limits on federal power? What the heck are those first ten amendments for?
This is ridiculous. Limited government is a first principle of this nation's founding. The concept of checks and balances...not a mechanism to preserve limited government? Three, co-equal branches, again, not a mechanism to limit power?
Have our schools failed in this most basic mission to educate us about our nation's founding?
No wonder so many of you simply roll over and accept any exercise of government power no matter whether it's permissible or not.
As to the tenth amendment, which I was not arguing specifically:
Federal powers listed in the Constitution include the right to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign trade. In addition to these delegated, or expressed powers (those listed in the Constitution), the national government has implied powers (those reasonably implied by the delegated powers. The implied powers enable the government to respond to the changing needs of the nation. For example, Congress had no specific delegated power to print paper money. But such a power is implied in the delegated powers of borrowing and coining money.
In some cases, the national and state governments have concurred powers -- that is, both levels of government may act. The national government laws are supreme in case of a conflict. Powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states, reserved powers, belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury.
The Constitution of the United States of America
The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment JURISPRUDENCE reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power.
Read more: Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment
How about these things that involve the federal government:
The National Endowment for the Arts
The Department of Education
Just to name a few. Clearly, our understandings change. How people see things change. People can read the same words and see different meanings overtime. Our Founding fathers could not foresee all the future held. Nor would we really want to live in their world, by their sensibilities. They set forth a guideline, and gave it the room to change and grow. They had to know times would change, just as they saw their time change. What they did was on the radical side, thought not with out influence.
The question is where is the line. And that line will move from time to time. But to state that we have an absolute and unchanging grasp and understanding of this great document is false. It will change each time we change. And that is a good thing. That which does not change is dead.
In order to illustrate your interpretation is correct, it is incumbent upon you to produce language from elsewhere in the Constitution which supports your view.
You, who continue to argue his position is absurd, need to prove your point or admit that your position is your opinion only.