The 10th amendment has been a joke since the late 50’s probably even longer. The 2nd too even with the recent Supreme Court decisions.
What it really means is the Constitution really has no meaning. If any of it is treated as if it doesn’t exist, then all of it or any of it can be.
Generations of “progressive” supreme court justices have worked hard to erase nearly all limits on federal power.
1. You're right.
2. The standard response is that you lack standing to sue.
3. You're playing in their courts, and the rulings are to far too great an extent controlled by politics and not by law.
Good luck, but I don't see that as a winning position. The truth, the law, and being right are not terribly important in a liberal's courts.
Ronald Reagan himself circumvented the 10th with the enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. I get furious every time I think about it.
If the Founders were here today, they'd tear up the Constitution and start all over - even Adams and Hamilton didn't have this in mind.
YOu are right. Some of the other respondents in this thread say it is all over. But I have a more optimistic, but guarded belief that there can be a push back to a line that the states and federal can compromise. If not, then there will be another civil war. I hope there will not.
Missouri voters last August voted 71% in favor of Health care freedom, taking out the federal mandates and penalties by not choosing to enroll in federal health insurance. This year our legislature is putting in more teeth to stop the incremental bleeding. So far, no federal push back. Maybe the 24 state lawsuits have their attention.
One other issue can be addressed. The council of governors created by E Order. We don’t believe our governor has the authority to administer beyond his state and electorate. And if one governor is presiding over a 4 state area, the other governors are being usurped of their authority to operate in their state in an emergency. Hopefully our legislature will be addressing that.
10th Amendment issues and state sovereignty are my passion. I am involved in a group studying the options and we are finding numerous encroachments on state sovereignty. Most involve federal money and unfunded mandates. Getting people to reduce their dependency on the government tit is the most difficult part of reducing, repealing, and restoring.
Your suit would be immediately thrown out. Attempts to appeal would likely be met with very large fines for wasting the Court’s time.
Much like the notion that “driving is a privilege” robs citizens of the right travel freely and turns it into a highly taxed privilege. And the folks have gone along.
The problem is that governments, at all levels, are too willing to trample over their own Constitutions.
For example, my state, New Mexico has this in its Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
Note the “IN ANY WAY” portion restricting municipalities and counties.
The municipal/county courthouses have posted “No Weapons” and when I inquire as to the authorizing authority I receive the reply “the judge’s.”
How can a judge, acting on the behalf of the municipality or county, possibly have the powers categorically denied to the municipality or county?