Posted on 10/27/2009 6:05:45 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
The Tenth Amendment showdown is coming. A Supreme Court test case on the power of the Tenth Amendment is coming.
There are several possibilities, but here’s my list.
Homeland Security has withdrawn the authority to round up illegals from Maricopa Arizona County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio won’t back down rightly claiming he works for Maricopa County not the federal government.
Gun control laws
When the USSC invalidated the handgun laws of the District of Columbia, Chicago passed an even more restrictive law and dared Second Amendment supporters to challenge it, and the NRA has.
When Chicago loses it will create a power vacuum in states. Conservative states’ governments won’t stand for the new restrictive laws certain to be passed by their liberal controlled cities like Dallas, Houston, New Orleans in response to Chicago’s defeat. Those laws will be supported by Obama’s Justice Department and will bring about a 10th Amendment test case on gun control laws.
Overreaching EPA
The Federal EPA is choking off water from the farms in California’s San Joaquin Valley to save a fish. California might not bring a 10th Amendment case to fight this outrage, but it’s very possible the state of Florida will defeat the federal government’s edict to stop sport fishing in the Gulf of Mexico by using the 10th Amendment.
Obama’s sellout to the UN on “Climate change”
Kerry and Boxer will roll approval of a treaty with the UN to force America to “pay” for our supposed “climate change crimes against humanity” into a new Cap and Trade package in an effort to sneak it into law. A 10th Amendment case against this from Texas and/or other states wouldn’t be surprising.
What do you think it will be? Write me at kcoachc@gmail.com let’s decide what to push for our test case.
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
If the Supreme Court decides wrongly on the 10th Amendment, I think it will be a mistake on the level of Dredd Scott.
Don’t get your hopes up. It’s been obvious for some time that the current SC are buddies of Zero and will blackhole any case that embarrases him. Where’s the birth certificate!?
What a shame that we have to resort to 9 unelected people in black cloaks.
If the answer is "his own state law", then that's the case... although SCOTUS should be scolding the Feds for having their own laws that they utterly fail to honor/uphold for themselves.
Do you think the “State Opt Out” scheme as rolled out by Reid yesterday is all a ploy to avoid a 10th amendment challenge?
present
That is why the healthcare bills give the states the option to participate or not.
I thought the EPA was suposed to protect HUMAN enviroment.
What’s up wit da fishes?
It won't be the first or only time.
As for the United States Supreme Court's attitude toward the tenth amendment, I refer to the federal imposition of a minimum wage on all states, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
The feds aren't going to voluntarily give up power that they've already grabbed, and the United States Supreme Court is inherently on the feds side, against the states.
It's possible to make bad choices for years without ever really paying the penalty. But I think we are past that point -- now we're at the point where a bad choice will light a fuse that will result in an explosion.
Actually, our freedom hinges on the whims of 5 unelected tyrants in robes,
and, to a certain extent, on only ONE unelected tyrant in a black robe, due to the makeup of the court.
Moreover, their biggest problem is going to be how to find a constitutional place in order to force ME to buy something I don’t want. Not as a condition of driving (a privilege) via auto insurance. No, this is about finding a constitutional place to force me to purchase something so I am permitted to be alive; a citizen of this country.
Btw, the same “law” they discover to find they can force me to buy something is going to have to be the same law that would PREVENT me from buying something. Sorry...no brussels sprouts, no Snickers bar.
Finally, I’m a chick. A pro-life chick at that. Looks like I’m going to have to rattle a couple of cages. That whole Roe V. Wade so-called privacy thing (which came out of thin air?) might be the hook I choose to hang this gang on.
I’m uninsured. And I don’t want to be sucked into a public option or national plan. And I intend to assert my privacy rights under Roe V. Wade in order to do it.
Your thoughts, Speaker Pelosi?
LOL
Go ahead, I dare you. I’ve already talked to lawyers willing to take this case...and they are.
My sweetie says, all the time “I love ya, but honey, I’d never cross ya”
:)
To me, it doesn’t avoid a 10th Amendment challenge because the federal government has no constitutional power to force the states to participate in this health debacle in the first place.
How can they “allow” the states to opt out of something the states are under no obligation to participate in in the first place?
It's interesting in that the article provides an example going in the other direction, and the issue of "power over the people" can cut either way.
The example I have in mind is Chicago (and Illinois in general) trampling on the right of free people to keep and bear arms. It's popular among the gun rights population, to demand relief from the feds. So, do they want the feds "all powerful," or the states?
The Supreme Court has made a big mess of things, and after considerable thought over the course of many years, I concluded that there is no "neat" way out of the mess; and no way that the various governments are going to return to the principles stated and implied by the founders.
-- now we're at the point where a bad choice will light a fuse that will result in an explosion. --
I think the US public will (mostly) go along with whatever the elites tell them to go along with. As always, there is a risk of significant loss of life as the government takes on a new form (no country or even empire is immortal), but I think that the scope of violence in the US will be minuscule - perhaps undetectable against the backdrop noise of everyday criminal violence.
That the country can elect an admitted dual-citizen, with no serious discussion by government officials as to how that plays against "natural born citizen," is one signal that the experiment of informed self-government is winding down.
WWWLD?
for my 3 cents, I don’t believe they have any such right.
I suspect this is why the whole thing is being approached rather gingerly.
Studies in Europe have already indicated Guilliane-Barre syndrome.
I had this ten years ago and if I dare take the swine flu vaccine, I’ll wind up crippled for life. I already have a predisposition for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain-Barr%C3%A9_syndrome
I was lucky....it came so suddenly and so scary. But it slowly left the same way. I can’t tell you how grateful I am.
But here’s the deal around here (and maybe we have some family issues):
I have a son with Tourette’s Syndrome (mild)
I have a nephew with Autism (serious)
I already had Guillain-Barre Syndrome some years ago
Both my sister and I were tested independently, many years apart for Multiple Sclerosis
I agree. Just wonder if it’s part of their strategy as I’m counting on a SC challenge should something pass.
I agree. Just wonder if it’s part of their strategy as I’m counting on a SC challenge should something pass.
I’m would expect the Justices to meet after hours, for casual discussion over drinks, maybe at cocktail parties.
So I wonder what they thought (off the official record) about the Tea Party march on Sept. 12. Anybody can read the writing on the wall when it’s written THAT large, even the Blind Nine.
Then again, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutional compliance. We are, along with the states.
The nine blind mice ( Justices ) ..
Easy. You will not be forced to buy anything. You will be taxed a certain amount more than someone who 'buys' insurance.
I don't think so. Treaty approval requires 67 votes. If they added it to Crap and Trade, which then got more than 51 but fewer than 67 votes (highly likely), I don't know whether just the treaty adoption would fail or if it would be viewed as defeating the entire bill.
Hey! Thomas can see just fine! (And the other 3-4 at times also)
If the answer is "his own state law", then that's the case... although SCOTUS should be scolding the Feds for having their own laws that they utterly fail to honor/uphold for themselves.
I was thinking the same thing. How can he defend enforcement of laws not of the government entity he works for. Not that I have any problem with him enforcing them (and I live in his county), but I could see how it might be difficult to defend. OTOH, all the county or state voters need to do is to pass a law making it a crime to be present in our county if you entered the USA illegally. There, problem solved.
I bet it's only for opting out of collecting benefits from the system, and the citizens of the state still have to pay the taxes for it. They're always eager to find some reason to cut someone out of getting the benefits, but it doesn't count unless they simultaneously opt out of paying IN. Also, what if you're an actual non-brain-dead human living in NY, CA, or MA? Where's YOUR opt out provision? Also, if the plan bankrupts private health insurers to the point that the pubic option is the only game in town, the "opt out" provision becomes worthless in practice.
Heh. Using Roe -v- Wade against Obama is delightful irony. I'd love to see that happen ...
Reminder:
1st Amendment - freedom of association (feds can’t make you use, or not use, a given doctor)
4th Amendment - security of one’s papers (feds can’t take your medical records without consent or warrant)
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.