Posted on 05/27/2009 9:52:13 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Interpreting the Constitution is a favorite American pastime. Differing opinions on just one sentence fill libraries to overflowing, and land legal cases in appeals courts and supreme courts from coast to coast.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments in particular are the basis for numerous "soap box" issues, precisely because their language is opaque and widely open to interpretation. Neither grants or denies specific powers; both provide instructions for how to read and interpret the rest of the document.
The Ninth Amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment reads: 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.
Both amendments have been the subject of differing opinions long before they were ever added to the Bill of Rights, and both have been the subject of enormous controversy ever since.
Alexander Hamilton, for example, asked of the Ninth during the original debate over the Constitution, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
And in 1962, former Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnette cited the Tenth to bar James Meredith from enrolling at Old Miss. "[M]y conscience is clear," Barnette said, justifying the state's refusal to integrate schools. "I am abiding by the Constitution of the United States."
Interpretations of the Tenth amendment have come up again the Mississippi legislature recently, and teabaggers have climbed on board for the ride. Although it's not the scope of this column to add an interpretation to either amendment, the Tenth in particular has spent considerable time lately in the national limelight.
Constitutional scholars say that interpretations of the Tenth generally fall into two camps: The first group says that the federal government does not have any powers except those specifically granted by the Constitution (or sometimes, the first eight amendments); the second group holds that the Tenth grants Congress the authority to do pretty much anything that isn't specifically prohibited by the first eight amendments. One sentence, two polar opposite opinions.
It's the first interpretation that conservative "teabaggers"—Libertarians, members of the Constitution Party and some Republicans—have latched on to. Mississippi falls into what the John Birch Society has dubbed the "Tenth Amendment Movement," by agreeing with this limiting interpretation and "reaffirming" it through legislation.
House Concurrent Resolution 69 reinforces "the fundamental principle and authority of State Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and discouraging the Federal Government from imposing certain restrictive mandates." The resolution adds the Legislature's interpretation of the amendment saying that it "defines he total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more," and that "the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states." It goes on to say that "many federal mandates appear to be in violation" of the Tenth without specifying what those are, but says it's up to the Mississippi Legislature to remind the federal government of its responsibility.
Much of the same language is found in Senate Concurrent Resolution 630, but it goes a step or two further in issuing a cease and desist order of "mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers," and demands that "compulsory legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."
The breadth of federal legislation that falls under the scope of SC630 is staggering: federal taxes, public education, food and drug policy, anti-discrimination laws (including those enforcing integration), printing money—essentially any law that is not specifically covered in the first eight amendments is, according to the Mississippi legislature "beyond the scope" of federal congressional power according to the U.S. Constitution.
Would lawmakers have us return to 1776 and slavery? If not, how many of the amendments enacted after the Tenth should be left? Should women and African Americans be disenfranchised? Do we put prohibition back on the books, or does it stay off? Do we immediately stop accepting federal funds that require the state to match all or part, like Medicaid? Or do we accept the funds but "without strings," to spend any way we see fit?
Rep. Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, Jack Gadd, D-Hickory Flat, and Thomas Reynolds, D-Charleston, attempted to show their disdain for HC69 through a pair of amendments ruled "improper." The first, from Holland, states: "Amend on line 82: The U.S. Congress, along with the Mississippi Legislature, supports, loves and respects Brett Favre during his latest vocational tribulation no matter what is decided." The second, from Gadd and Reynolds, reads: "Amend after line 86: This discussion on this resolution shall end and we will fix the car tag issue."
Somehow, both of those make more sense the rolling back the clock 230 years.
More of an FYI than anything else...
Calling the participants in tea parties “teabaggers” is like misspelling Barack Obama as “Bukkake Obama.” A cheap shot, and vulgar. I’m sick of it.
(anger directed at author of article, not poster)
Thanks for the heads up & ping!
The second group has a much easier job because they didn't actually read the 10th amendment.
Instead of calling it “ Tea Bag Party “ ... we need to call it was it is, we are standing up and up holding the US Constitution.... The US Constitution Party....
Thanks.
Seems many lawmakers want slavery. They just don't want it due to race.
Then the second group either needs to learn how to parse English or needs to be hanged on the end of a rope.
The term “teagbaggers” is intended as a derogatory term for those who are standing up for the Constitution.
OMG, the author is a drooling idiot.
When I was a kid, me and my cousin were goofing around one afternoon when my dad came home with a load of groceries.
We begged my dad could we eat some of the groceries.
My dad grumbled “Just don’t touch the liquor or cigars” and promptly retired to the head for his daily constitutional.
An argument ensued.
My cousin, who’s still a liberal to this day, insisted that my dad’s commandment was complex and required special understanding. He was positive my dad had said we were allowed to consume the liquor and cigars as long as we could contrive some scheme where we didn't technically touch them.
I took the more commonsense approach and decided my father had meant exactly what he said. I satisfied my hunger with a Twinkie and milk.
Naturally, my cousin got sick.
To this day, that side of the family won’t talk to our side. In their minds, my dad should have been more clear.
And please note, according to the title WE are the ones engaging in spin.
Let me off this planet. I'm done.
A BS article.
Komrade Stalin Øbama has shown us that a "Constitutional Scholar" can also be a despotic psychopath, an uninformed bumbling amateur and an outright idiot, all at once.
To the author of the BS spin article, have you ever read the written works of the founding fathers, the real Constitution etc. Or are you basing this diatribe on your public school eduction or worse...leaving it to “Constitutional Experts.” The Constitution was written for the people to govern themselves and keep power away from the seats of government. A person of fair minded intelligence should be able to clearly read and comprehend its meaning. Every ‘freeman*’ in the country has the right and responsibility to read and form opinions on the document.
I refuse to give over my Rights and Responsibility to the US Constitution to your, “so called experts.” I am not a member of your sheeple(imposed serf)class, but I am a Freeman and Citizen. No, you feign worry about turning the clock back 230 years; yet like the High Priests of ancient times you keep the people from reading and interpreting their own religious texts and happily relegate that task to those who would be our slave drivers.
* A person not in slavery or serfdom.
One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizen.
...God forbid we shouldn’t amend the constitution that has so many things wrong with it. Surely the “Rule of Law” could not be bent or changed to empathize with some instead of equality for all...
[looks around for teab*****s]
The only one I see here is Ronni Mott.
...”Let me off this planet, I’m done”.
...A comic friend of mine used to do a bit on UFOs. He would comment on the people that would come to see them armed, for fear of abduction. His last line would be, “Will you all please let the aliens land? They might be here to pick me up!” My sentiment exactly...
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.