Thread: The most useless amendment today: The 10th Amendment

Originally Posted by fredmertz

We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol in the US. The interpretation is changing. Which means the value of the words in the constitution are meaning less today than yesterday. We're on the path to it meaning nothing at all. Supreme power to our national government. With supreme power, imagine what happens if the wrong person is elected into office.

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. They are limited only by its own choice. The people and the states have no powers that are not approved by the federal government, and any one of them can be taken away at the discretion of the federal government.

Originally Posted by Centinel

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. They are limited only by its own choice. The people and the states have no powers that are not approved by the federal government, and any one of them can be taken away at the discretion of the federal government.

The people have the power to vote.

Originally Posted by Centinel

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. [...]

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

However, the states can institute a constitutional convention, and has been noted the people get to vote on a routine basis. That tends to disprove any claim or inference that the federal government has attained totalitarian status.

Originally Posted by misterman

The people have the power to vote.

You are absolutely correct. And as I mentioned earlier the federal officials that are installed on behalf of the majority are the sole judges of the limits of their.

Originally Posted by Karl

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

Correct. The judicial branch of the federal government is the sole and final judge of the extend of the federal government's power.

However, the states can institute a constitutional convention, and has been noted the people get to vote on a routine basis. That tends to disprove any claim or inference that the federal government has attained totalitarian status.

True, 3/4 of the states may alter or abolish the constitution. Until then, the federal government's power is supreme.

Originally Posted by Karl

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

Not really.

It simply is the final judge sometimes beacuse disputes end up in the Court and it gets the last word.

It has no say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Centinel

You are absolutely correct. And as I mentioned earlier the federal officials that are installed on behalf of the majority are the sole judges of the limits of their [power].

And that's why they also have terms of office.

“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

—Thomas Jefferson in a letter to W. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820—

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

—Thomas Jefferson in a letter to W. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820—

Could you maybe follow that up with explaining why you posted that and what your point was?

Originally Posted by fredmertz

10th 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."

On the surface, this seems like it's granting the states and people quite a bit of power. At the time of debating it, the writers initially had the words 'expressly delegated' written into the constitution. They debated, of course, and took out the word 'expressly' so that the US Congress had some wiggle room. Some even argued the amendment was obviously true and unnecessary. Now today the exact opposite is true.

Today I cannot imagine a law that the US Congress could pass that couldn't be possibly interpreted by the SCOTUS to fall under some combination of clauses in the US: i.e. necessary and proper clause, commerce clause, etc based on interpretation and precedence. If this is the case, then we must ask ourselves what purpose the 10th amendment has.

We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol in the US. The interpretation is changing. Which means the value of the words in the constitution are meaning less today than yesterday. We're on the path to it meaning nothing at all. Supreme power to our national government. With supreme power, imagine what happens if the wrong person is elected into office.

Folks, we need to start asking the simple questions again. Not the complex questions of 'how can we interpret this clause' to push our sides' agenda but rather: is this the path we want to be on?

So you think it's useless because an off-the-mark or poorly guided SCOTUS could abuse it's powers?

Doesn't that make it THAT much more IMPORTANT - if it would have to be blatantly and carelessly tossed aside by teh abuse and blind eye of the judiciary in order for it to BE meaningless?

What about a future SCOTUS that isn't poorly guided?

You might not conceive of it's purpose - but that doesn't mean it's not important.

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

Could you maybe follow that up with explaining why you posted that and what your point was?

I think the point was quite clear enough as Jefferson made it. If you didn't get the point as he expressed it, then I doubt if there is anything that I could add that would make you understand.