Better and better....

(I'm just sharing this with you guys so y'all can follow my learning process if you wish)....

So, hm... this is very clever, don't you think?

They're using a federalist argument to support an entirely anti-federalist proposition.

What did I tell you? Huh? Lyin' bunch of stinkin' freakin' weasels....

Okay, so now I'm into the "States' Rights" thing.

Hmm.... Lincoln had some interesting behavior, and some interesting assertions in that regard, yes?

Hmm.... so it seems, that the Civil War represents a major turning point in the understanding and interpretation of "States' Rights" in US history.

Okay, got that part. The "Party of Lincoln". Hm.... interesting. So, this is kinda topsy-turvy again, isn't it?

Check this: "Lincoln falsely claimed that the Union preceded the states, and was therefore not subject to their sovereignty."

Hmm... does that ring of "Neo-Con" to you? Hmm....

So, here's an interesting list.....

So, this is getting better and better. I think I'm zero-ing in on the fundamental question, which is kinda the Madison-v-Hamilton thing cast into a more general context, which is really the question of "federalism" -

Because, the Constitution has "competing constructions"- and that's something I just now noticed. Wierd, huh? After reading the (*)(*)(*)(*) thing for almost fifty years?

Yep - competing constructions - and what's even more fascinating, is, I'm starting to wonder whether that wasn't done deliberately, instead of just being an "artefact" of a debate like Madison-Hamilton.

So like, we could look through history and identify certain "turning points" where the US kinda went in one direction or the other - like, for instance, during the Civil War, and like, for instance, during the New Deal.

I think, if I'm catching on correctly, these are the "precedents" that Boogie was refering to.

So, now, it seems the Court also has competing schools of thought, and they can't[ in fact make any judgements about federalism (because that would be out of their "scope", that would be "political" and not "legal") - so, they end up having to play off one Amendment against another, or against another section of the Constitution, or something like that -

Depending on.... what? I haven't figured that part out yet. Sometimes it seems like it's related to something the President wants (whoever the Prez might be at the time), and sometimes it seems like it's related to someone's idea of "social justice" or something, and sometimes it seem entirely arbitrary. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to say it's "unrecoverable", though. It's definitely "difficult" though, that much is clear.

So, that's what I have so far. I'm compiling on the Ashcroft thing, the bots are running as we speak, so by this time tomorrow I'll have all there is to know on that subject - and if I get the chance I'll even share it with you.

(studio time tomorrow, so can't never tell with that - sometimes the first track works perfectly and you're outta there in fifteen minutes, and sometimes the dang producer has got you there till sun-up trying to get "the perfect sound" or something).....

No worries friend.

"The Florida Supreme Court decision that was overturned in Bush v Gore was consistent with the plain language of the principal statute involved—the Florida statute governing contests of election certifications".[1]

So does a state have the right to run elections how they want to?

"The Rehnquist Court assert[ed] the judiciary’s role (or, in its words, “unsought responsibility”) to resolve the relevant constitutional questions rather than deferring to the political process."[2]

In today's political jargon, we call that judicial activism. And I'm no fan of Mr. Gore Vidal, but Bush v. Gore makes for strange bedfellows:

"Well, this gang is extraordinary in its looseness, dedicated as they are to the 10th Amendment; they then go and overthrow a supreme court, something someone who believes in states' rights could never have done."[3]

The 10th is clear:

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.

[1]here
[2]here
[3]here

I just want to repeat for record.

There is no right to Privacy in the US Constitution.

That was the result of Judical Activism.

Are you die hard Libertarians still against Judicial Acitivism, or do you just pick and choose when its conveniant.

Not to mention Civil Rights and Segregation - Judicial Activism.

There is 100 years of Precedent establishing exactly what the 10th Amendment means.

For a bunch of traditionalists you sure hate that tradition.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

I'm not a traditionalist. Appeal to tradition is always a logical fallacy.

No one or no group has the right to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of other individuals or groups of individuals. That is a logical truth. Government's only legitimate function is preventing individuals/groups from using violence, fraud or coercion against each other.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Glad to hear you do not use Tradition as a debate tool.

There is no right to privacy unless you believe in Judicial activism.

So is there or isnt' there a right to privacy?

Ixtellor

P.S. Does Stare Decisis count as tradition or law?

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

I'm slow. I don't get how we got from here (10th) to there (privacy). Help.

Well, I'm not sure what your point is, but since this thread is on the 10th amendment I'll address it that way. There's no right for the federal government under the 10th amendment to deny anyone a right to privacy or any other right - if through such a right they are acting peacefully, honestly and voluntarily.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer