[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The 10th Amendment (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:43:39 AM EDT
|
Amendment X
"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." Does this mean anything to anyone? Have you ever really understood this Amendment? Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, and why WE need some Arrest Warrants Issued 
The Forgotten Amendment |
|
Quoted:
Amendment X "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." Does this mean anything to anyone? Have you ever really understood this Amendment? Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, and why WE need some Arrest Warrants Issued
The Forgotten Amendment In before the Constitution is outdated , how dare you question the .gov and the people that just wanna bash you because they work for the .gov people show up |
|
Yes and No. Im pretty sure .GOV controls monetary policies. Basically what your saying is the whole federal tax system is unconstitutional. .GOV has been given discretion to print money, etc etc. That is what they are doing. Printing Money on their printers. Kinda has nothign to do with the 10th.
and the media has coined the word Bailout just like they coined Assault Rifle. Or heat seeking bullet. |
|
Quoted:
The USSC said it means the opposite of what it reads IIRC, thus the massive federal government. But if they didn't have the Constitutional power to declare that because of the 10th Amendment, is it really binding law? EDIT: I just had an interesting blip of realization. The "respectively" opened up something for me. It looks like the written intent was this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States; the powers prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the people." So basically, the Federal government could do only what was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Any other powers or rights the states were prohibited from, via the Constitution, were reserved to the people. That's my take, for what it's worth. I think if we actually followed the original intent of the system, we'd have a MUCH smaller Fed.gov with 50 mostly-autonomous pseudonations under the same banner, instead of 50 slightly autonomous administrative regions under the same cohesive nation. |
|
Local and State Governments are going to have to "Fix" the mess OUR Federal Government helped create.
WE THE PEOPLE have to look past the smoke screens and "FIRE" those Guilty of NOT doing what they were "Hired" to do at all levels. If you're scared get a dog. The PANIC you see from OUR Federal Government are the Politicians realizing that the SCAM is about to fully be exposed and WE will hold them accountable. It starts with YOU and ME, Not OUR "Big" Federal Government. WE Have to Wake Up and get OUR House in order. United WE Stand, Divided WE Fall, means something. If it doesn't then, Why are WE playing THEIR Game? |
|
I read the Specific mention of the United States (the Federal Government), the States (state governments), and the People to mean that the Fed .gov, the State.gov, and the People are three separate entities.
Therefore, the mention of 'The People' in the Second Amendment (as also in the First and Fourth) means that the people means us as individuals - not the .gov - have the right to keep and bear arms. -K |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, Wrong. Go back to class and put down the bong. I must be "the Clown to the left of" you. 
I wish I was a "Pothead" at times. 
Where does it say take MY/YOUR Tax dollars and Nationalize Banks...Take OUR Tax $$, charge "US" Interest, and then buy OUR "Assets" with OUR $$$$. 
WE need a Federal Government, to a lesser degree; What WE don't need is another "Kingdom", The Declaration of Independence |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, Wrong. Go back to class and put down the bong. I must be "the Clown to the left of" you.
I wish I was a "Pothead" at times.
Where does it say take MY/YOUR Tax dollars and Nationalize Banks...Take OUR Tax $$, charge "US" Interest, and then buy OUR "Assets" with OUR $$$$.
WE need a Federal Government, to a lesser degree; What WE don't need is another "Kingdom", The Declaration of Independence +1 but to a VERY lesser degree. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, Wrong. Go back to class and put down the bong. I must be "the Clown to the left of" you.
I wish I was a "Pothead" at times.
Where does it say take MY/YOUR Tax dollars and Nationalize Banks...Take OUR Tax $$, charge "US" Interest, and then buy OUR "Assets" with OUR $$$$.
WE need a Federal Government, to a lesser degree; What WE don't need is another "Kingdom", The Declaration of Independence +1 but to a VERY lesser degree. Article I Section 8. You talk about the Constitution but you don't even know what powers Congress has. |
|
Nothing within those enumeration of powers seems to me to suggest that the Congress has the power (after threatened with Martial Law) to take the peoples' money and channel it through private banks to fund massive parties and severance packages.
I'm missing that part. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing within those enumeration of powers seems to me to suggest that the Congress has the power (after threatened with Martial Law) to take the peoples' money and channel it through private banks to fund massive parties and severance packages. I'm missing that part. Congress has the power to tax.... and the power to spend. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing within those enumeration of powers seems to me to suggest that the Congress has the power (after threatened with Martial Law) to take the peoples' money and channel it through private banks to fund massive parties and severance packages. I'm missing that part. Congress has the power to tax.... and the power to spend. You're going to give someone a stroke. 
|
|
Quoted:
Okay then it has the power to take every dime we make and give it out to the corporations who funded the congressional elections. That IS what the founders had in mind, huh? There is no "good idea" clause in the constitution. Just because something is a really stupid idea doesn't make it unconstitutional. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing within those enumeration of powers seems to me to suggest that the Congress has the power (after threatened with Martial Law) to take the peoples' money and channel it through private banks to fund massive parties and severance packages. I'm missing that part. Congress has the power to tax.... and the power to spend. You're going to give someone a stroke. This is damn near Diff Eq! |
|
The 10th Amendment means nothing, just like the rest of the BOR. After all, the Constitution was ratified without any of them. Someone who studied the Constitution at the PhD level said so, so I guess what it says in plain English is irrelevant. Now go back to work, peasant. There are millions of people relying on the perfectly-legal ponzi schemes of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for you to be sitting here actually thinking. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, Wrong. Go back to class and put down the bong. I must be "the Clown to the left of" you.
I wish I was a "Pothead" at times.
Where does it say take MY/YOUR Tax dollars and Nationalize Banks...Take OUR Tax $$, charge "US" Interest, and then buy OUR "Assets" with OUR $$$$.
WE need a Federal Government, to a lesser degree; What WE don't need is another "Kingdom", The Declaration of Independence +1 but to a VERY lesser degree. Article I Section 8. You talk about the Constitution but you don't even know what powers Congress has. Article 1, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;––And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. +1 but to a VERY lesser degree. ....And it says, "Collect Tax to Nationalize OUR Banking/Auto/Insurance Industry"..Um...Don't see that Line anywhere. I'm not an "Anarchist", I understand Taxation, but they put the Mob away for these types of things. I guess you believe in the "Do as I say, Not as I do" Crowd...WE are on the same "TEAM", brother. You trying to "Get" Me is the problem. I'll still pray for You, Just do the same for Me
Just a Frustrated Opinion.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing within those enumeration of powers seems to me to suggest that the Congress has the power (after threatened with Martial Law) to take the peoples' money and channel it through private banks to fund massive parties and severance packages. I'm missing that part. Congress has the power to tax.... and the power to spend. You're going to give someone a stroke. This is damn near Diff Eq! If I really want to bake somebody's noodle I would probably mention that the same Congress that drafted the X Amendment also created <gasp> a nationalized bank funded with taxpayer money! And that James Madison, the man who actually wrote the X Amendment signed legislation when President to <gasp> create a nationalized bank using taxpayer funds!!! <insert exploding heads .gif> |
|
Quoted:
The 10th Amendment means nothing, just like the rest of the BOR. After all, the Constitution was ratified without any of them. Someone who studied the Constitution at the PhD level said so, so I guess what it says in plain English is irrelevant. Now go back to work, peasant. There are millions of people relying on the perfectly-legal ponzi schemes of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for you to be sitting here actually thinking. Nice strawman argument. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
....And it says, "Collect Tax to Nationalize OUR Banking/Auto/Insurance Industry"..Um...Don't see that Line anywhere. Necessary and Proper clause. Read Marbury v. Madison He's right. Other than the blanket paraphrase 'all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void,' Marbury v. Madison was a huge knock to the country. Marshall was a big government type who hated Jefferson. He did massive damage from his Supreme Court bully pulpit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 10th Amendment means nothing, just like the rest of the BOR. After all, the Constitution was ratified without any of them. Someone who studied the Constitution at the PhD level said so, so I guess what it says in plain English is irrelevant. Now go back to work, peasant. There are millions of people relying on the perfectly-legal ponzi schemes of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for you to be sitting here actually thinking. Nice strawman argument. +1 None of it matters any more. It's just for show. "The illegal we can do right now, the unConstitutional just takes a while" - Henry Kissinger |
|
Quoted:
Does this mean anything to anyone? It did to Rehnquist. Have you ever really understood this Amendment? Yes. Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, and why WE need some Arrest Warrants Issued
The Forgotten Amendment The idea of the 10th amendment was to make absolutely clear that there were limits to Congress' power. Congress does, however, have the ability to spend money...and that's what the bailout is. Spending. What they are doing is technically Constitutional. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 10th Amendment means nothing, just like the rest of the BOR. After all, the Constitution was ratified without any of them. Someone who studied the Constitution at the PhD level said so, so I guess what it says in plain English is irrelevant. Now go back to work, peasant. There are millions of people relying on the perfectly-legal ponzi schemes of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for you to be sitting here actually thinking. Nice strawman argument. +1 None of it matters any more. It's just for show. "The illegal we can do right now, the unConstitutional just takes a while" - Henry Kissinger Yeah. Okay. You +1'd something you don't even understand. 
Zaphod was refering to me. And what he posted as my position is nothing but a gross distortion of what I actually stated. In another thread today Zaphod posted that when the states ratified the Constitution the federal government was restrained by the X Amendment. I merely pointed out the historical FACT that the original Constitution, as ratified in 1787 and 1788, did not contain any Amendments (including the X). He somehow twisted this into me arguing that the BOR has no meaning. I still can't figure out how he got there from what I posted.
|
|
Quoted: Zaphod was refering to me. And what he posted as my position is nothing but a gross distortion of what I actually stated. In another thread today Zaphod posted that when the states ratified the Constitution the federal government was restrained by the X Amendment. I merely pointed out the historical FACT that the original Constitution, as ratified in 1787 and 1788, did not contain any Amendments (including the X). He somehow twisted this into me arguing that the BOR has no meaning. I still can't figure out how he got there from what I posted. Hey, YOU'RE the one saying that whatever the Federal Government does is legal because, after all, the Federal Government is SUPREME (your own term for it). Therefore, for you the 10th Amendment is meaningless. Period. You cannot say the 10th means something and then argue that the Fed is supreme. But hey, I haven't stupied at the PhD level, so what the fuck do I know, right? I can just read English. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Zaphod was refering to me. And what he posted as my position is nothing but a gross distortion of what I actually stated. In another thread today Zaphod posted that when the states ratified the Constitution the federal government was restrained by the X Amendment. I merely pointed out the historical FACT that the original Constitution, as ratified in 1787 and 1788, did not contain any Amendments (including the X). He somehow twisted this into me arguing that the BOR has no meaning. I still can't figure out how he got there from what I posted. Hey, YOU'RE the one saying that whatever the Federal Government does is legal because, after all, the Federal Government is SUPREME (your own term for it). Therefore, for you the 10th Amendment is meaningless. Period. You cannot say the 10th means something and then argue that the Fed is supreme. But hey, I haven't stupied at the PhD level, so what the fuck do I know, right? I can just read English.
Congress has enumerated and implied powers. These powers are interpreted broadly via the necessary and proper clause. The 10th amendment is a truism. If Congress doesn't have the power, then the states do. If the states don't have the power, the people do. If you didn't have the 10th Amendment, this would still be the case. |
|
Quoted:
So technically a federal assault weapons ban would violate the 10th? (along with the 2nd but that's a different argument) The gun laws we have now are based on the idea of interstate commerce. Firearms are produced in interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal regulation. An assault weapons ban would be based on the same interstate commerce basis. If they tried to pass a law invalidating Virginia's concealed carry laws, for instance, THAT would be a violation of the 10th amendment because it has nothing to do with interstate commerce and is a matter between Virginia and her citizens....at least, that's basically how it was prior to Heller. Heller's eventual impact on that hypothetical is unknown right now, but odds are it won't change it. Congress tried to create gun-free school zones but was slapped by the USSC (Rehnquist was CJ at the time...the same guy who thought the 10th had teeth) because it was purely a criminal matter and involved absolutely no interstate commerce, so Congress had no business involving themselves in it. |
|
Quoted:
Congress tried to create gun-free school zones but was slapped by the USSC (Rehnquist was CJ at the time...the same guy who thought the 10th had teeth) because it was purely a criminal matter and involved absolutely no interstate commerce, so Congress had no business involving themselves in it. So Congress tweaked the law, and its back on the books.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So technically a federal assault weapons ban would violate the 10th? (along with the 2nd but that's a different argument) The gun laws we have now are based on the idea of interstate commerce. Firearms are produced in interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal regulation. An assault weapons ban would be based on the same interstate commerce basis. If they tried to pass a law invalidating Virginia's concealed carry laws, for instance, THAT would be a violation of the 10th amendment because it has nothing to do with interstate commerce and is a matter between Virginia and her citizens....at least, that's basically how it was prior to Heller. Heller's eventual impact on that hypothetical is unknown right now, but odds are it won't change it. Congress tried to create gun-free school zones but was slapped by the USSC (Rehnquist was CJ at the time...the same guy who thought the 10th had teeth) because it was purely a criminal matter and involved absolutely no interstate commerce, so Congress had no business involving themselves in it. Of course the Supreme Court also just recently upheld the idea that the mere possession of objects = interstate commerce. Regardless if any sort of commerce actually happens, interstate or otherwise. eta: For that matter, the NFA is based on the ICC. However, the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA is not. It is an outright ban on new machine guns. Ditto for 1994 AWB. We're well beyond quaint fig leaves like the ICC, these days. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So technically a federal assault weapons ban would violate the 10th? (along with the 2nd but that's a different argument) The gun laws we have now are based on the idea of interstate commerce. Firearms are produced in interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal regulation. An assault weapons ban would be based on the same interstate commerce basis. If they tried to pass a law invalidating Virginia's concealed carry laws, for instance, THAT would be a violation of the 10th amendment because it has nothing to do with interstate commerce and is a matter between Virginia and her citizens....at least, that's basically how it was prior to Heller. Heller's eventual impact on that hypothetical is unknown right now, but odds are it won't change it. Congress tried to create gun-free school zones but was slapped by the USSC (Rehnquist was CJ at the time...the same guy who thought the 10th had teeth) because it was purely a criminal matter and involved absolutely no interstate commerce, so Congress had no business involving themselves in it. I see. So what if I bought an "assault weapon" made in the same state? That isn't exactly interstate commerce. |
|
I think the 9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and the 10th are the two missunderstood admendments. Even with out the 2nd admendment these two allow us to have guns and it is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban them.
Heaven forbid we follow the constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Hey, YOU'RE the one saying that whatever the Federal Government does is legal because, after all, the Federal Government is SUPREME (your own term for it). The federal government does lots of things that turn out to be illegal...but that's where the courts come in. Since the court packing fiasco FDR pulled the USSC hasn't shown the spine to really stand up to Congress or the Executive. They've been more of a mild annoyance than a bulwark preventing broad overstepping of Constitutional boundaries. The Warren Court's interpretation of "interstate commerce" is a good example of how that process has worked...and a good example of why the judges politicos appoint matter more than the policies they stand for, many times. Therefore, for you the 10th Amendment is meaningless. There are many who believe it is meaningless. Thankfully we've managed to put some people on the bench who think that the ratification of the 10th actually meant something. Period. You cannot say the 10th means something and then argue that the Fed is supreme.
But hey, I haven't stupied at the PhD level, so what the fuck do I know, right? I can just read English.
What the Constitution says, and what the courts SAY that it says, are not the same thing. What the courts SAY that it says becomes the rules of the game. |
|
Quoted:
Of course the Supreme Court also just recently upheld the idea that the mere possession of objects = interstate commerce. Regardless if any sort of commerce actually happens, interstate or otherwise. ...because historically the court has taken such a broad interpretation of ICC that it's become a loophole for Congress to do damn near anything it wishes to do. (Precedent is just fine until you hit BAD PRECEDENT and then it should be flushed. Unfortunately that's not how the courts work, except when liberal justices end up on the bench. They don't give a damn what precedent is or what the Constitution says...They have a goal in mind and come up with any idiot logic they have to come up with to justify it) That goes back to the court packing scheme of the closest thing the US ever had to a dictator, FDR. eta: For that matter, the NFA is based on the ICC. However, the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA is not. It is an outright ban on new machine guns. Ditto for 1994 AWB. We're well beyond quaint fig leaves like the ICC, these days. The production of firearms is still ICC...and according to current legal theory still is within the purview of Congress' authority. You and I both know that the AWB's and machine-gun ban aren't about ICC, but the courts don't give a crap what we know. Heller is the wildcard in that because we don't yet know what the full impact of it will be or how it will be modified (or even if it will be overturned) by future decisions. The Heller ruling has lots of room for anti-gun nonsense in it from my reading. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
....And it says, "Collect Tax to Nationalize OUR Banking/Auto/Insurance Industry"..Um...Don't see that Line anywhere. Necessary and Proper clause. Read Marbury v. Madison Didn't this case make all three branches of government Equal? Not a lawyer... 
And still can't believe OUR Founding Fathers expected the Federal Government to Nationalize Private Industries. If that's the case, The Republic "Died" when OUR Constitution was signed, before it even started.
Why are WE playing by Their "Rules"?; Why am I paying Interest on my "Liabilities"?; Why are WE excepting a "Federal Reserve Note"? So OUR Government isn't MINE or YOURS??? Time to read up on the BOSTON TEA PARTY 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress tried to create gun-free school zones but was slapped by the USSC (Rehnquist was CJ at the time...the same guy who thought the 10th had teeth) because it was purely a criminal matter and involved absolutely no interstate commerce, so Congress had no business involving themselves in it. So Congress tweaked the law, and its back on the books. I don't think it's ever been enforced, for the reason that most agree the Rhenquist court would have struck it down again because it's essentially the same as the previous law they invalidated with the Lopez decision. I suspect the Roberts court would do the same thing. There is simply no way guns in schools can reasonably be construed to be a matter of interstate commerce, no matter how flowery the preamble to the law is. |
|
Quoted:
Amendment X "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." Does this mean anything to anyone? Have you ever really understood this Amendment? Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, and why WE need some Arrest Warrants Issued
The Forgotten Amendment It's not forgotten... You just might want to look at some of the 'powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution'.... Interstate Commerce & General Welfare -> bailouts of inter-state corporations are Constitutional - the wisdom of doing so aside, they are LEGAL. The US Constitution is a Federalist document - in the original sense... It was *designed* to establish a strong central government. |
|
Quoted:
I see. So what if I bought an "assault weapon" made in the same state? That isn't exactly interstate commerce. Did all the materials used to make the weapon come from within the state? Read Katzenbach v. McClung. Under the interpretation of ICC in that decision even if you use one component from out of state, it becomes ICC and is subject to Congressional regulation. ...hence my disdain for the Warren Court's ends-justify-the-means behavior. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Zaphod was refering to me. And what he posted as my position is nothing but a gross distortion of what I actually stated. In another thread today Zaphod posted that when the states ratified the Constitution the federal government was restrained by the X Amendment. I merely pointed out the historical FACT that the original Constitution, as ratified in 1787 and 1788, did not contain any Amendments (including the X). He somehow twisted this into me arguing that the BOR has no meaning. I still can't figure out how he got there from what I posted. Hey, YOU'RE the one saying that whatever the Federal Government does is legal because, after all, the Federal Government is SUPREME (your own term for it). Therefore, for you the 10th Amendment is meaningless. Period. You cannot say the 10th means something and then argue that the Fed is supreme. But hey, I haven't stupied at the PhD level, so what the fuck do I know, right? I can just read English.
Once again, a GROSS distortion of what I posted.
|
|
Quoted: What the courts SAY that it says becomes the rules of the game. Oh believe me, I know that. Scary isn't it? SCOTUS says that what isn't anywhere in the Constitution is a civil right, but then it sees something that is EXPLICITLY in the BOR, and comes within ONE VOTE of saying it isn't there. But hey! It's the Fed, therefore it's legal! It's us ignorant shitheads that actually read what the document says that are wrong, traitors, insurrectionists, etc. 
|
|
Quoted:
Yes and No. Im pretty sure .GOV controls monetary policies. Basically what your saying is the whole federal tax system is unconstitutional. .GOV has been given discretion to print money, etc etc. That is what they are doing. Printing Money on their printers. Kinda has nothign to do with the 10th. and the media has coined the word Bailout just like they coined Assault Rifle. Or heat seeking bullet. 1) The federal tax system is constitutional due to the power to lay and collect taxes, and the 16th Ammendment. 2) They aren't actually printing money (there's only $700bn of that stuff in circulation) - they Fed is stimulating leverage to increase the effective money supply... Also constitutional, as a delegated exercise of the power to coin money & regulate the value of the same, and of the negative-power to emit bills of credit (10th Amendment - it's denied to the states, so the Feds get it)... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Amendment X "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." Does this mean anything to anyone? Have you ever really understood this Amendment? Why "Bailouts" are UN-Constitutional, and why WE need some Arrest Warrants Issued
The Forgotten Amendment It's not forgotten... You just might want to look at some of the 'powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution'.... Interstate Commerce & General Welfare -> bailouts of inter-state corporations are Constitutional - the wisdom of doing so aside, they are LEGAL. The US Constitution is a Federalist document - in the original sense... It was *designed* to establish a strong central government. You have no clue what the word federalism means, apparently. That statement proves it. |