This piece is kinda interesting too, Boogie (and thanks for your input on this, you're really helping me understand this issue).

So, if I'm reading this right, you're kinda implying that the US has already deviated "sufficiently" from the original intent of the 10th, that it's basically "impossible" (or "very difficult") to get back at this point?

And are you suggesting that human nature is the "reason" for that, or are you simply observing that there's an "amplifying effect" in that regard?

Unfortunately...yes. It's a sign of the changing face of our society.

Remember Kennedy's speech? "Ask not what your country can do for you?" Man, is THAT every an irony now! NOW people demand everything from their country, but don't want to lift a finger in return. It's the exact opposite.

Personally, I don't know when the needle will swing back, the other way. We live in a selfish, head-in-the-sand society, and looking at how we're bringing up our children...it's going to get a lot worse, before it gets any better.

Very interesting. I'm going to have to go do some homework now. You (individually and collectively) have really piqued my curiousity on this issue....

So I'm gonna delve into "case law" a little bit, and see what I can find out.

Or maybe I should just go get a JD, right Senax? (j/k)....

Suddenly I'm interested in "where we stand" in relation to the Tenth Amendment. I mean, this is like an epiphany for me -

'Cause now I finally understand why I hate George freakin' Bush and the Neo-Cons.

It's 'cause they're violating my Constitutional rights!!!

(Or at least, what I "perceive" to be my rights at this point, so I gotta go back and try to figure out how much of my perception is "real" - and even if it turns out to be real, what if anything I - or any citizen - could actually DO about it).

So my plan, is to just start by researching the Supreme Court decisions that invoke or relate to the Tenth Amendment, and to the question of "States' Rights", and then I'm going to try to build some "context" around that piece by studying a little lower-level case law to see how the Supreme Court decisions fit in with what's going on "on the ground" -

Does that sound like a plan?

And then I can get back to you guys and report, and we can discuss further, but suddenly I feel very ignorant, like I'm not "fully equipped" to discuss this topic.

And then I gotta check my e-mail and find out whether Senator Feinstein wrote me back, 'cause I asked her this question "as a lawyer", and last time I wrote her she actually took the time to write me a detailed personal reply, which I deeply appreciated, so I'm very eager to hear what she has to say on the subject. (I don't know if you know her, she's our senior Senator from California, she's pretty powerful, sits on all kinds of committees - I'd say she's kinda "centrist" as far as Democrats go, definitely more conservative than Boxer, sides with the President on "many" issues, that kind of thing - she seems like a really smart lady, and she'a a lawyer and all, AND she's a Senator, so I wanted to ping her to see if she could point me in the right direction in terms of things to study).

I guess you have big problems with the Republicans in regards to how they governed when in charge. This ammendment has equall opportunity thrashing.

Yep. You're absolutely right. I mean, I really got to thinking about this stuff last night, and then the discussion with Boogie made me try to think about all the possible ways in which the Tenth Amendment could be applied, and the list of stuff I came up with that's either "unconstitutional" or "only marginally constitutional" is astouding - social security, Medicare Part D, dispensation laws, end-of-life issues, gun laws, ID cards, .... I mean, even the freakin' [B}IRS[/b] is suspect in that regard.

I mean, this would be from a guy who really "knows nothing" about the Tenth, or where it stands in relation to today's law, so that's why I really gotta go back and figure all this stuff out now.

I understand the "federalism" part that Boogie tried to explain to me, and I have a few threads to pursue in terms of the lexis searches, and so it shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots in the middle.....

I mean, yeah - see... this is kinda hard to explain.....

It's like, I've been tellin' y'all about this "visceral" reaction I get to George Bush, it's like a gut-check, and I really wanted to understand where this was coming from, 'cause I didn't really know, it was just this "visceral" thing, this "feeling", is how it started -

And so, I've been trying to figure out "why", 'cause I mean, most people, they never get past the "rhetoric", right? They call the guy an a$$howl, and that's the end of it - but I wanted to figure out WHY, 'cause I can't see calling someone names like that unless there's a darn good reason for it (and in that case, I mean, the reason would be political, not personal).

And then couple that with the additional observation, that you (generic) and I (generic) may see Bushie in completely different ways, and so why is it that you don't get the same visceral reaction that others seem to?

See what I mean? So, I've identified "several" key factors, that I can individuate out of the mess that is my "internal visceral emotional domain" -

One is, the man is an arrogant..... he's arrogant. He talks down to me like I'm a little freakin' child that can't handle the truth. He fills the airwaves with platitudes and never tells me anything useful, and then when I ask him for the truth I'm denied. Screw him. He can eat my shorts.

Second - well, you see where this is going. But the most recent one on the list, is the political one, which is the Tenth Amendment. How this started, was I got wind that the man was about to try to reach into my personal medical life and try to pull the plug on some essential medicine that I need to keep going in this world, and that made me deeply, deeply offended, and right then and there I drew the mental boundary and said, "no freakin' way".

Right then and there, was the first time I had a huge gut reaction, and now I get it every time, it's like, all I have to do is hear mention of the man's name, and I get mad. I get freakin' angry. It's unreal. No president has ever made me feel this way, EVER.

Except George W Bush. Congratulations Georgei, you're the first.

So it didin't take long to link that whole thing up with the issue of the Tenth, but what I've just discovered here in the last couple of days is that the Tenth is really important, it's like, hugely important - it affects "everything".

And yes, you're certainly right, it's an equal-opportunity club. The feds trying to intervene in my personal medical treatment is definitely and unquestionably unconstitutional, but so is the feds "mandating" my personal medical treatment through universal healthcare. So you're right, and this is exactly the issue I want to explore now.

So lemme go off and do that, I have some time for that purpose tomorrow, 'cause Nicky has diaper duty and I can probably postpone my little project another day without too many problems, so I'll just bump this up to the top of the list and we'll see what happens after a couple of hours.

I'm already back in the New Deal.

This is fascinating.

So, the landscape that's emerging is that the IRS is covered under the 16th, the tax protesters claim it was never fully ratified but they usually don't try to invoke the Tenth, and it looks like the 16th forms the basis for the "taxation" behind Social Security.

But here, this is a very long article but it's full of fascinating history, so let me share this with you so far:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

And, it seems, the medical issues want to get covered under a different section of the Constitution, that talks about "providing for the general welfare".....

Hm.....

Not much on the Tenth so far. Let me get into the gun-law stuff.

The drug thing is kinda interesting too. I'm reading about the Harrison Act right now (1914). It seems that some of those provisions were used as models for laws that are still on the books. For instance, according to the federal dispensation laws, a doctor could actually dispense marijuana in the course of his normal medical practice - but the trouble is two-fold, first he could lose his medical license, even though "technically" he's in compliance with the "other part" of the law, and the secondly, doctors are licensed by States and so the state law would have effect in terms of the licensing. So that explains why the "pot doctors" will send you down the street to the "pot club" instead of dispensing it themselves. Hmm.....

Check this out: this is the assisted-suicide thing:

"The Attorney General of the United States has directed that the use of a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting a person to commit suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” within the meaning of the Drug Enforcement Agency regulation 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 and that such use would subject a person to the criminal penalties of 21 U.S.C. § 821 as well as to the revocation of that person's registration, authorizing the dispensation of controlled substances. The Attorney General has further determined that a person's compliance with the provisions of the Oregon “Death with Dignity Act” shall not constitute a defense to the prohibitions and penalties in his order. "

So, not only are they going to keep the poor schmuck from killing himself, they're actually going to take away the rest of his medication too.

What a bunch of freakin' idiots.....

Yeah, there go the "compassionate conservatives".

What a bunch of lyin' stinkin' weasels these Neo-Con-artists are.....

(sorry, couldn't resist)....

www.law.harvard.edu/academics/registrar/exams_01-02/rtf/fried.rtf+drug+dispensation+laws+constitutionality &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us]LINK SHORTENED BY MOD[/url]

Ashcroft, April 23, 2002 "Ashcroft uses federal Controlled Substances Act to exert federal domain of drug regulation by the States".

(This was originally about the euthanasia laws, then extended by Gonzales to rationalize the current pot-club-RICO thing I was telling you guys about).

So lemme dig into this (this is the part I was trying to get to - "how do the Neo-Cons tie into all this) -

So yeah - I'm kinda getting the picture now. Hamilton vs. Madison, and Article 1 Section 8 versus the Tenth Amendment, and etc.

Well, this is interesting - so, I'm gonna go back through Prohibition for a second, and then I'm gonna trace this forward via the history in Oregon, and then let's see how and why Ashcroft ties into this.....

(I love it - where's my hat and my calabash pipe? )