The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Are y'all hip to the Tenth Amendment?

In my opinion it's one of the least understood and most important sentences in the entire Constitution.

It's rarely been applied in Constitutional law. Only recently has it begun to surface in a meaningful way. And oh the irony - who do you think led one of the most important recent decisions in that regard?

Why, none other than Judge Antonin Scalia.

Surprise, surprise. Wonders never cease.

The case is called Printz v. United States, it was heard in 1997.

It declared Unconstitutional, on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, a Federal law that required states to perform background checks on gun permit applicants.

This is a remarkable piece of precedent.

Think about it.

Thoughts?

I completely agree. The Federal government is being stretched way too thin, having to worry about all these Mickey Mouse bullchit issues that the states really have jurisdiction over.

Case in point (again) is Hurricane Katrina. It's so chic to blame Bush for his failures, but where's the blame for Blanco and Mayor Chocolate City? According to the Constitution, state and local governments are fully responsible for dealing with disasters like this, and the Federal government is the "last resort."

Here in St. Louis, when we endured the floods of '93, we didn't whine to the Federal Government. We used state and local resources. (Well...then again, we were civilized and helped each other. Not like in Chocolate City, where the locals SHOT AT folks who tried to help)

States need to step up, and the Federal Government needs to stop meddling in their affairs. Of course, the Commucrats would LOVE the Federal Government to control EVERYTHING, but then again, that's why they've only had one President since Jimmah Carter.

I agree. That Katrina thing, was a real shocker, all around. We were there - we were in Jackson MS five days after the hurricane, and we actually made it into New Orleans about a week later. It was horrible, I still have nightmares about what we saw there. And my wife was pregnant at the time, and she insisted on coming along to do whatever she could to help - yeah, it was bad.

And you are certainly right - there's more than enough blame to go around. Blanco especially seems to have been "quite confused" and overwhelmed -

But on the other hand, you kinda had to see what has happening "on the ground" to understand how the feds were contributing to the massive muck-up - I mean, f'r instance, they'd shut down a lot of the roads, and the result of that was that emergency vehicles and supplies couldn't get in or out - BUT, they were letting through the news crews. Go figure. These are the FEDS I'm talking about - the FEMA people - not the locals. FEMA was actually trying to control the streets. I kid you not. I was there, and I saw it with my own eyes. We were like, six or seven car-lengths behind one of Joe Scarborough's trucks when they got turned back, and Nicky and I got really pissed off and went AROUND the road-block and no one followed us or tried to stop us. Guess they were too busy trying to turn back all the other people who wanted to help.....

I think, that is "it seems to me", that there ought to be a pretty clear boundary in terms of the division of what belongs to the feds and what belongs to the States. Constitutionally, it's pretty clear - it's even EXPLICIT in the Tenth Amendment. But practically speaking, it's pretty clear too - I mean, there are certain things that ONLY the federal government can do - like, national defense, and perhaps the kind of emergency coordination that occurs when "many states" are involved in a natural disaster, something like that - these, I think, most people would agree that things like these are "essential" federal functions.

But this boundary that we're talking about, between the feds and the States, has been blurred in several ways recently, and most of it has to do with the feds trying to exercise ever-increasing jurisdictions in areas that don't really belong to them. My "low-hanging-fruit" example in this area lately, has been "medical dispensation" - I mean, think about it - people are married in states, and doctors are licensed in states, but the federal government claims jurisdiction on drug dispensation and in the area of medical triage and end-of-life issues. I mean, this stuff makes NO SENSE, it's very schizophrenic. But, the situation is pretty complicated by now, 'cause there are definitely special interests involved, and so on, and in many cases the feds may be more responsive to the needs of corporate America than they are to the needs of individuals.

I'm kinda a "States'-Rights" guy to begin with, in the Reagan-conservative mold, and when the feds try to "acquire" powers behind my back, it makes me very nervous. This whole thing about wiretapping and eavesdropping and so on, I haven't fully decided on yet - it seems to me that there are legimate needs in that area that have arisen on the basis of advances in technology, that are not fully covered by the scenarios that the Founding Fathers may have been able to imagine a couple hundred years ago - but on the other hand, the PRINCIPLES they agreed on back then, are still sound, and I'm not sure yet where I would actually draw that boundary -

But "wherever" it's drawn, it seems to me that changes like this need to be part of a legitimate Constitutional process. It won't do for the Prez (or whoever - DNI or NSA or pick another) to say, "well, we have a crisis today so we're just going to ignore this little sentence in the Constitution for a while".... I mean, if I were to accede to that kind of thing, as a citizen I'd want my Prez to fully explain why he was doing it, and also I'd want to know about the sunset provision in any laws that might be entered into the books in that regard -

That kind of thing. See what I mean? We could get much more specific in terms of examples - I mean, there are literally thousands of cases where the federal government is trying to either blackmail or extort the States - in some cases they want to "outright" force them to do certain things via legislation, and it seems that the above precedent kinda puts a dent into that concept -

And then in other cases, they'll say "we won't give you any highway money unless you crack down on drunk drivers", or "we won't give you any education money unless you follow the NCLB guidelines", or whatever it may be - and cases like this are kinda "on the border" right now, in terms of where they stand in relation to the Tenth Amendment -

But I suspect that if a few more cases of this type were brought before the Supreme Court, we could eventually get a better definition of the boundary between the feds and the States, and that, it seems to me, would be helpful -

Especially in cases like we seem to have now, where some people think it's an "emergency and we're on a war footing", and other people say it's not so bad and we really shouldn't be at war at all .... and the President happens to fall into the more restrictive camp, causing considerable concern among the population at large -

And in my opinion, there's that much concern precisely because this area is kinda gray and ill-defined, from the standpoint of case law and so on, and the few Constitutional decisions that have been made (at least the ones that carry any weight) are fairly recent -

As recently as 1932, a Supreme Court opinion expressed the viewpoint that the Tenth Amendment was just a tautology, and basically what I'm reading in Scalias' opinion is a dissent, as if to say, "no it's not - it's a very important and fundamental limitation on federal powers".

So, I mean, this actually give me hope, to have a conservative judge like that pick up on a delicate issue like this -

I mean, that surprised the hell out of me when I read Scalia's name on the opinion, and I found myself thinking "you go, dude" - 'cause I dunno, sometimes people confuse the "strict constructionists" with the "narrow constructionists", and I was very happy and relieved to see that Scalia was apparently coming down in the former camp on this issue.

Seriously dude, ease up on the "Stephen King" novels...

Well, I've always said that the Federal Government should never be relied upon to do anything, regardless of which party is in control. Leave it to the officials who have the proper knowledge of the situation.

The problem is that we live in a society of ignorant citizens who WANT the feds to handle everything on a global level. Not only that, but it's SOOOO easy to blame them, as well. The citizens (generally) don't even know enough about their local government, to know who to blame anyway.

For instance, some radio show took a survey, here in St. Louis. Only 1 of 20 people knew who their state representatives were. 4 of 20 knew the name of the mayor. It's sad, really.

The 10th Amendment ultimately means that the federal government has no right to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

And it therefore needs to chill...

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

You have an excellent point.

Hmm.... well, I'm kinda s "small-guvmint" guy, but I'll set that aside for a moment, and consider this -

Part of the problem, it seems to me, in relation to what you just said, is that sometimes we don't really know where we stand with these guys. I mean, with the feds versus the states versus the locals, and who owns what - that kind of thing.

I think you raise an excellent point about "coming to depend on the federal government", and the follow-up suggestion which is (I'm paraphrasing just so you can bounce back if I'm missing your point) that this eventually leads to an "expectation" and even a "desire" for the federal government to somehow magically "take care of things" (whatever "things" anyone may think they're supposed to be taking care of at any given moment) -

I mean, Katrina might be an example in this space, yes? Part of the whole deal was the confusion over jurisdiction and so on - and I think that's true "more generally", when it comes to this issue over "who owns what" and what level of the government the responsibility belongs -

So from that viewpoint, I'd certainly favor a "minimal" or "small" government, so then I could be "reasonably expected" not to expect anything from the government - and so fine - we both know what to expect and everyone's happy -

But so the problem with that, is that now we have the "social justice" types, who'll raise issues like Edwards and Hillary are doing, that it's somehow a "moral responsibility" of government to provide universal access to quality healthcare for all Americans - and you know, they tell these heart-wrenching stories like about this guy who couldn't get his cleft palate fixed until he was 50, so basically he couldn't talk for 50 years just 'cause he didn't have any insurance -

And to that I say - well, I'm sorry and I feel for the guy, I really do - but what does that have to do with politics? How does that represent an overwhelming social need in which the government needs to get involved? That sounds like a personal issue to me, not one that engages "We the People". But, the social-justice types feel differently, they think the feds ought to get more involved in "partnerships" like this, and they know new entitlements are costly but they feel the cost is worth it (or I guess they must feel that way, 'cause they keep voting for it).....

See, but those two examples I just gave you - Katrina and the cleft-palate guy - are like opposite sides of the same coin, 'cause in one case I'm saying "the government should get involved because there's a common issue", and in the other case I'm saying "the government shouldn't get involved because there isn't a common issue" - and somewhere in there, there is an obvious ethical and political disconnect, isn't there?

I mean, think about it.

There's an answer though, and it is: that the latter acquires social significance through "multiplicity" - I mean, it's kinda the same argument they used during Prohibition, and to get all the dangerous drugs illegalized during the 20's and 30's.

In "my" eyes, that answer is fallacious - but other people feel differently, and I'm certainly willing to consider opinions on that one, 'cause as you can see, a lot of this stuff is "right on the border" ethically and morally, and as far as I'm concerned those are some of the more interesting puzles in politics.

Take note that ALL the dem presidential candidates have come out for new gun confiscation laws.

Very true. The sheep are ignorant (and I mean that in a literal sense). They have no freakin' clue about state and local government jurisdiction. Hell...most people don't even go to the polls if there's not a national election!

Good. You're catching on.

The problem wasn't even confusion. The very second the levees broke, the media crucified Bush. But what did Mayor Chocolate City do? He didn't even evacuate his city in time!! What did Blanco do? She failed to rally the state's national guard in a reasonable timeframe. She was too busy getting her butt to safety! No....as soon as the city flooded, a million hands immediately reached out to the Feds (palms up, of course). They completely bypassed state and local government, and immediately laid 100% of the blame and cost on the Feds. That's NOT right.

Welcome to Federalism. The Sheep need to quit crying to the Feds, every time they don't like something. The Feds are there for international issues, and nationwide issues, that the states can not do themselves. Basically...the States' governments ALWAYS come FIRST.

Funny how the Socialists hate "morality" in law, but then they pander to the voters with these "moral responsibility" things. The Federal Government should NOT be responsible for us. LOCAL government, yes. States' government...it depends.

Bingo.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

If we take "United States" to be synonymous with the federal government, which I think is reasonable, then the amendment means that whatever powers the government doesn't have, either the states themselves or the people have.

I think that it basically means that since the Constitution is really more a whole bunch of "thou shalt nots" as opposed to "thou shalts," practically speaking, the federal government has no power except to protect the rights of its citizens.

It does also establish, however, that the responsibility of the federal government to protect the rights of the people does supercede the rights of the states. If you really think about it, I mean. This means that state laws have to adhere to the Constitution. In fact, the only real purpose of the federal government is to make sure they do.

That's the way I interpret it, anyway.

Another excellent point. So, this "model" is kinda heirarchical, and the closer you get to the ground the more engagement there is with The People.

That's good - I like that model. It seems to me, that's the way guvmint is supposed to function. That's like, the "intent" of the Founding Fathers.

And I do appreciate your point about the hypocrisy also - which is certainly true too - and so then, I'd fire one back at you though ( ) -

Like, if we were to try to get rid of the hypocrisy "entirely" (which would be a tall order "all at once", I mean in the real world you'd have to take political "baby steps" and that kind of thing) - but "theoretically", would you say this "model" should be maintained "across the board"?

It seems to me, that if you're a real Federalist, your answer would be "yes".

And I "think" (and you seem to agree), that my own political position is "very close" to genuine federalism - but I'm not really 100% sure about that, you guys'll have to feed back to me about the areas in which it may differ -

So here's how this plays out in "my" political mind - I mean, I would "prefer" to engage my local government whenever possible, and when they can't provide the needed services I should be able to engage the State, and when that fails I should be able to engage the feds, and when that fails I'm basically SOL and I'll have to fend for myself. I mean, that's perfect - that's perfectly fine with me, and that's exactly how I'd expect my government to work.

but then, it would have to work the other way too, right? I want to keep the feds out of my life as much as possible. I want to be able to pick and choose where to live, according to the community whose preferenes most closely match my own. And within any given state, there "usually" oughta be a wide choice in that regard, but if I get really desperate I might consider moving to a different state, where the laws are different and there's a different way of life or whatever -

I mean, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be, right? Not all of this federal "conformity" and top-down "imposition" of values and ideologies and gazillions of minute laws that conflict in so many different ways that you need a JD just to figure out where you stand in relation to your guvmint....

So yeah, I think I'm pretty much 100% aligned with the model that you're suggesting, and if that's Federalism, then that's me.

Now, let me ask you something - and I mean this in the most humble way - 'cause please treat me like I'm an ignorant school-child and I just need to be shown the basics before I can catch on to the more complex stuff - but...

Please feed back to me about what I'm saying in these posts. You know, like in the last two or three days I've generated VOLUMES of posts, and most of it is expressing extreme anger over GWB and the course his administration has been and is taking, and what I've been trying to say is, that the man is not a Federalist, and the political ideology he seems to subscribe to (as it's evidenced by his political actions) is just about the farthes thing from genuine Federalism that there IS, especially in the context of Republican politics.

I mean, that's why I keep saying that Hillary is just like Georgie and vice versa, 'cause neither one of 'em seems to understand anything about how this government was intended to function - or at least let's say, they have "different" visions about how it's supposed to work - "different", that is, from our Founding Fathers. Different, from the Constitution. To me, those two, Hillary and Georgie, are just opposite sides of the same coin, and they represent the same creeping evil, just in different forms. In my opinion Bushie is slightly more evil, but that's just my opinion - the reason is because he wants to reach around the Constitution in the name of expediency, and that in my opinion, is much worse than anything Hillary's talking about..

And, that's not to say that "anything that's not federalism is evil". On the contrary, there are probably "many" models that'll work, and the best way to say it is probably that I prefer the Federalist model. It makes the most sense to me. I mean, the best way I could analogize is: I don't mind the "testing" concept in No Child Left Behind. That's a worthy endeavor, to ensure that our education meets "minimum standards". BUT, I reject out of hand the notion that there should some kind of "common curriculum" linked to that concept - so in other words I think it's a "must" to administer the thing in such a way that it prevents teachers from "teaching to the test", and then secondly I think it's entirely unfair for the feds to blackmail the States over education money -

And I mean, we could argue about whether the feds should even be giving education money to the states - 'cause a better option might be to reduce federal taxes and just leave that whole thing up to the states and the locals - but I mean, it's already a done deal, right? In today's world, that's just "the way it is" - but given that, I really don't think it's fair for the feds to be extorting and blackmailing the States in that regard. That would be a Tenth Amendment issue, and that's why I've become interested in that particular question.

So yeah - I think we understand each other. This is good - see, this is perfect. This is what political debate is supposed to be all about. We start out with a slightly different approach, and slightly different terminology, and at first it seems like we're dis-agreeing with each other, but the more we talk the more we come to understand each other - and at the end of the day we might even discover that we're in complete agreement -

I mean not "complete" complete, but maybe "complete" on all the essentials that really matter, if not the minutiae - and that, is a hell of a lot better than most of what's going on in politics today, right?

So, well done.

Yeah, I'm interested in your opinion, since you seem to understand this issue - where do you stand on this Bush thing? Do you like the guy? Do you think he's "bad enough", or let's say, a serious enough challenge to the longer-term concept of a Federalist government model/structure, to warrant some complaints in that regard?

I mean, I'm "trying" to look at this whole spectrum of issues, through a Federalist lens - at least I think that's what I'm doing - and I think that's why I'm reaching the conclusions I am - but it would definitely help to have some other pairs of eyes on this thing, right?

(*)(*)(*)(*).... never thought I'd hear myself say that.... "help, this thing is too big for me"....