Posted: 6/28/2010 9:04:34 AM EDT
|
Is it assumed that anything in the constitution only applies to the federal government unless explicitly stated? The McDonald Case incorporates the 2nd amendment based on the 14th amendment but what about the 10th amendment? How do we really know what the 2nd amendment applies to and how does the 10th amendment apply to the 2nd before and after the McDonald case? |
|
The 10th amendment has had no teeth since the civil war. That and everything can be construed as affecting interstate commerce. For example: If you grow your own wheat instead of buying it at the store, you have prevented a farm the next state over from having a market for their wheat. Therefore you can't grow your own wheat because it would interfere with interstate commerce.
ETA. That case wasn't a made up joke of an example, it is a real case. Wickard V Filburn A fun excerpt: ""that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." |
|
Quoted: The 10th amendment has had no teeth since the civil war. That and everything can be construed as affecting interstate commerce. For example: If you grow your own wheat instead of buying it at the store, you have prevented a farm the next state over from having a market for their wheat. Therefore you can't grow your own wheat because it would interfere with interstate commerce. ETA. That case wasn't a made up joke of an example, it is a real case. Wickard V Filburn A fun excerpt: ""that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." I've read about that case and it makes my wonder why the government even plays these games anymore since that ruling hasn't been challenged. |
|
Quoted:
Is it assumed that anything in the constitution only applies to the federal government unless explicitly stated? The McDonald Case incorporates the 2nd amendment based on the 14th amendment but what about the 10th amendment? How do we really know what the 2nd amendment applies to and how does the 10th amendment apply to the 2nd before and after the McDonald case? The 10th amendment is moot. It has no relavance to the USA today. The states have authority only in matters the Fedgov chooses to ignore COMPLETELY. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 10th amendment has had no teeth since the civil war. That and everything can be construed as affecting interstate commerce. For example: If you grow your own wheat instead of buying it at the store, you have prevented a farm the next state over from having a market for their wheat. Therefore you can't grow your own wheat because it would interfere with interstate commerce. ETA. That case wasn't a made up joke of an example, it is a real case. Wickard V Filburn A fun excerpt: ""that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." I've read about that case and it makes my wonder why the government even plays these games anymore since that ruling hasn't been challenged. It was essentially confirmed with Gonzales v Raich. The states are defunct. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Is it assumed that anything in the constitution only applies to the federal government unless explicitly stated? The McDonald Case incorporates the 2nd amendment based on the 14th amendment but what about the 10th amendment? How do we really know what the 2nd amendment applies to and how does the 10th amendment apply to the 2nd before and after the McDonald case? The 10th amendment is moot. It has no relavance to the USA today. The states have authority only in matters the Fedgov chooses to ignore COMPLETELY. Like immigration?  |
|
Quoted: Is it assumed that anything in the constitution only applies to the federal government unless explicitly stated? The McDonald Case incorporates the 2nd amendment based on the 14th amendment but what about the 10th amendment? How do we really know what the 2nd amendment applies to and how does the 10th amendment apply to the 2nd before and after the McDonald case? According to the 10th itself, if there is a Federal Constitutional provision, the states are SOL. Article 6 and the 14th both provide such a provision, with regard to the 2nd. So the 2nd is the law of the land for all levels of govt on one hand, but all the state-level 'firearms freedom acts' violate the 10th Amendment and Article 6 on the other. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The 10th amendment has had no teeth since the civil war. That and everything can be construed as affecting interstate commerce. For example: If you grow your own wheat instead of buying it at the store, you have prevented a farm the next state over from having a market for their wheat. Therefore you can't grow your own wheat because it would interfere with interstate commerce. ETA. That case wasn't a made up joke of an example, it is a real case. Wickard V Filburn A fun excerpt: ""that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ..... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." I've read about that case and it makes my wonder why the government even plays these games anymore since that ruling hasn't been challenged. The ruling was challenged in Raich v Gonzolez Raich lost. Wickard was upheld. In any case, even without Wickard/Raich there is so little commerce that is truly intrastate these days, that it's a moot point. The economic development of the USA has moved beyond localized state-centric economies, to a nationally/globally integrated economy. |
|
Quoted: The Bill of Rights was intended to only apply to the federal government, the Constitution establishes the powers and branches of the federal government. That's history 101. That's one side's view of history. The actual literal text of the Constitution says something entirely different. Article 6 clearly states that all provisions of the Constitution are to be 'supreme' over all state laws and state constitutional provisions. The ONLY Amendment of the Bill of Rights that was to be 'federal-only' was the 1st, as it is the only one that mentions 'Congress'. The rest are absolute protections of rights-of-the-people, not limited to the US govt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Bill of Rights was intended to only apply to the federal government, the Constitution establishes the powers and branches of the federal government. That's history 101. That's one side's view of history. The actual literal text of the Constitution says something entirely different. Article 6 clearly states that all provisions of the Constitution are to be 'supreme' over all state laws and state constitutional provisions. The ONLY Amendment of the Bill of Rights that was to be 'federal-only' was the 1st, as it is the only one that mentions 'Congress'. The rest are absolute protections of rights-of-the-people, not limited to the US govt. So why do you argue for unconstitutional statism all the time? Dave, you are so close to getting it sometimes but then you just don't quite make it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Bill of Rights was intended to only apply to the federal government, the Constitution establishes the powers and branches of the federal government. That's history 101. That's one side's view of history. The actual literal text of the Constitution says something entirely different. Article 6 clearly states that all provisions of the Constitution are to be 'supreme' over all state laws and state constitutional provisions. The ONLY Amendment of the Bill of Rights that was to be 'federal-only' was the 1st, as it is the only one that mentions 'Congress'. The rest are absolute protections of rights-of-the-people, not limited to the US govt. Who are you and what have you done with Dave_A? 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: The Bill of Rights was intended to only apply to the federal government, the Constitution establishes the powers and branches of the federal government. That's history 101. That's one side's view of history. The actual literal text of the Constitution says something entirely different. Article 6 clearly states that all provisions of the Constitution are to be 'supreme' over all state laws and state constitutional provisions. The ONLY Amendment of the Bill of Rights that was to be 'federal-only' was the 1st, as it is the only one that mentions 'Congress'. The rest are absolute protections of rights-of-the-people, not limited to the US govt. Except that view was not shared by the authors of the Amendments. And of course the federal government was supreme, but that doesn't mean I was wrong. In fact, I was correct. The Constitution spells out the limited powers delegated to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment then reaffirms this by EXPLICITLY stating that anything not covered in the Constitution as being a federal power is reserved to the people or the states. How hard is that to understand? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The Bill of Rights was intended to only apply to the federal government, the Constitution establishes the powers and branches of the federal government. That's history 101. That's one side's view of history. The actual literal text of the Constitution says something entirely different. Article 6 clearly states that all provisions of the Constitution are to be 'supreme' over all state laws and state constitutional provisions. The ONLY Amendment of the Bill of Rights that was to be 'federal-only' was the 1st, as it is the only one that mentions 'Congress'. The rest are absolute protections of rights-of-the-people, not limited to the US govt. Was that the founding fathers intentions with article 6? |