Posted on 08/21/2005 7:00:15 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights stated the purpose of those Amendments with an appropriate tone of warning, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." Further restrictive clauses, for an already limited government, to prevent abuse of power.
Article VI is one of the restrictive clauses in the original document. It clearly says that all "Officers, both of the United States and the several States, --" shall be "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding."
Among these restrictive clauses was the Tenth Amendment, which reserved all powers, not enumerated in the Constitution, either to the States or to the people. It was a simple one-liner. Nothing could be clearer.
Clear indeed. It says, boldly:
" --- 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. -- "
Note that prohibitions are placed on States, not only in the original document, but in its Amendments, as enumerated.
The Tenth Amendment was the key to Federalism. Its constraints empowered a hierarchy of representative governments with accountability kept local to the people, which effectively kept injustices confined to the smallest possible scope, albeit with little recourse.
Recourse is enumerated in Article III, whereby the USSC has jurisdiction to try all cases " -- arising under this Constitution, -- ".
The Tenth also permitted wide differences in State laws. If the people of a State wanted a government religion, the Tenth Amendment permitted that.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
If a State wanted to regulate speech, or to socialize private property, the Constitution was mute.
Not true. Abridging of speech is prohibited to States under the 1st, as per Article VI.
None of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the national government in Federal Court.
So claimed the States rightists. In reality violations of all of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be brought before the Supreme Court, if they found cause under the Constitution to hear them.
If the people didn't like the government of a particular State and couldn't change it, their principal recourse was the freedom to move and apply their energies in another State.
No, -- their "principle recourse" against a rogue state was the "Law of the Land". If that recourse failed, the right to rebel came into play. - We had just fought a revolution against a tyrant that said 'love English law or leave'. -- It is amazing for you to claim we gave our State governments that same tyrannical power, enshrined in our Constitution.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
That law only applies to the national government. If you look at a number of early State constitutions, there are direct references to a Christian God therein.
Only to the degree that the Constitution allowed. If a law exceeded the authority granted to the national government, it was void.
Clear indeed. It says, boldly: " --- 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. -- "
Only to the degree that the Constitution allowed. If a law exceeded the authority granted to the national government, it was void. The Federal government, at that time was prohibited from applying the powers you describe in this post as pursuant to Article VI.
Recourse is enumerated in Article III, whereby the USSC has jurisdiction to try all cases " -- arising under this Constitution, -- ".
Only pursuant to the powers granted to the Feds in that Constitution.
The Tenth also permitted wide differences in State laws. If the people of a State wanted a government religion, the Tenth Amendment permitted that.
Not true. Congress was stopped from making laws " -- respecting an establishment of religion, -- "; -- but Article VI said that " -- no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States -- ". Government religions are a de facto religious test.
Only for officers of the national government. As evidence, I posit to you the numerous State Constitutions that specifically endorse a Christian God.
If a State wanted to regulate speech, or to socialize private property, the Constitution was mute.
Not true. Abridging of speech is prohibited to States under the 1st, as per Article VI.
We disagree. It only prohibited Congress. The 14th Amendment extended First Amendment protection to the States.
None of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the national government in Federal Court.
So claimed the States rightists. In reality violations of all of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights could be brought before the Supreme Court, if they found cause under the Constitution to hear them.
Not until the 14th Amendment unless the case involved Federal jurisdiction.
If the people didn't like the government of a particular State and couldn't change it, their principal recourse was the freedom to move and apply their energies in another State.
No, -- their "principle recourse" against a rogue state was the "Law of the Land". If that recourse failed, the right to rebel came into play. - We had just fought a revolution against a tyrant that said 'love English law or leave'. -- It is amazing for you to claim we gave our State governments that same tyrannical power, enshrined in our Constitution.
Most people moved before they would hire a lawyer.
Gentlemen, clean-up in Aisle 41, please. You know who it is. He's back yet again.
A clearer interpretation would be that it is the states responsibility to work out the standards of the training, composition of the militia, and funding; but that whatever they do, they may not so limit it that they deprive the Federal government of a pool to draw from which is capable of actually competently fulfilling the role. Further, the militia is defined as the whole of the people of suitable age so as to be physically capable.
That law only applies to the national government.
Article VI "only applies to the national government?" The text clearly says otherwise. -- Do you make that flat unsupported claim for every clause in the Constitution that prohibits state powers, or infringements on individual rights?
If you look at a number of early State constitutions, there are direct references to a Christian God therein.
Yep quite a few of the original States had state supported religions, relics of the colonial era. They soon died away. - And the experience of the Mormons in Utah finished the idea of having State supported religions in the USA.
Ummm. No. Only the additional powers granted in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17 where the federal government is granted the powers normally reserved for State and local governments.
BUMP
The 10th is clear indeed. It says, boldly: " --- 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. -- "
Only to the degree that the Constitution allowed. If a law exceeded the authority granted to the national government, it was void.<.I>
The exact same argument applies to State laws that exceeded US Constitutional authority. See the 10th as to powers prohibited to States.
The Federal government, at that time was prohibited from applying the powers you describe in this post as pursuant to Article VI.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Mama, you said that "The 'jurisdiction' of the United States government is given in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17."
There are actually three jurisdictional areas - territorial, person and subject matter. The United States has the exclusive legislative jurisdiction to exercise the police powers of regulation in federal enclaves, such as above.
Congress also has subject matter jurisdiction to legislate on matters enumerated in the Constitution such as Interstate Commerce. This is not considered restrained to federal enclaves. Any State or local law in conflict with federal law passed under an enumerated authority is subordinate to that federal law. Local law will be read to be in harmony with federal law, unless that is not possible or if it is determined that federal law has occupied the field so as to quash local law.
Congress has also extended its reach by making receipt of federal funds by the State for roads, welfare, education etc. conditional upon the States accepting their agendas and incorporating certain provisions into State programs.
Well, I posted the entire 17th paragraph, and I don't see that anywhere.
Could you show me, please?
Your statement is correct..however-
Part of the misinterpretation of the commerce clause is that the 'commerce between the States' is JUST THAT.
The political entities known as 'states'...NOT the physical geographical location.
Like if the State of Texas purchased pineapples from the State of Hawaii, the federal government would have the enumerated authority to see that the purchase met weight/size/measurement requirements so no State was cheated.
It has nothing to do with the political, imaginary borders between the States!
Congress has also extended its reach by making receipt of federal funds by the State for roads, welfare, education etc. conditional upon the States accepting their agendas and incorporating certain provisions into State programs.
And political blackmail is STILL blackmail. The States are so subservient to the federal government now, they will NEVER sue the federal government for breach of contract like they should!
Do I understand you correctly as saying that if two businesses in two separate states are conducting trade, that does not fall under the scope of the commerce clause, because the state governments themselves aren't engaging in commerce?
If that's the case, then that would also apply to two businesses located in two separate countries. Yet the founders were clear in their intent that that sort of thing be subject to federal control.
Frankly, MamaTexan's interpretation does seem to be awfully narrow, but to admit much more opens the door to what we have today.
Well, I posted the entire 17th paragraph, and I don't see that anywhere.
Could you show me, please?
As follows:
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;
Normally the federal government has jurisdiction over things specified in the constitution, as amended. In the specified locations, it has powers typically reserved for the states and local governments.
It has nothing to do with the political, imaginary borders between the States!
Surely you aren't referring to Hawaiian pinapples that had always existed within the bounds of Texas. States absolutely are limited by geography.
No mere words would prevent what we have today, as the issue is willful illiteracy on the part of several of the Justices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.