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.
No, that's not the discussion. The discussion is the reasonableness of a poster's argument that the 10th Amendment reeally means that an authority not delegated to the national government is really delegated to ... the national government.
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.
I already did by noting its absurdity. The language of the 10th makes it clear that his perception/interpretation is absurd.
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?
You asserted he's all confused, now it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is in fact correct.
The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.
He admitted, when I asked him, that it was simply his opinion.
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.
Since you are asserting your view as factually correct, the onus is on you to prove it.
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.
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.