Tom McClintock Joins House Republicans to Launch New 10th Amendment Task Force

Auburn Journal ^ | 5/6/10 | Bill George

[jokar]

GOP TOM GO BTT

[oneamericanvoice]

Tom McClintock is one of the few remaining good things about CA!

FYI Californians: Tom endorses Steve Poizner.

[marsh2]

No, he is correct. The delegation of authority is from the People, through their elected representatives in a Constitutional Convention, not the States. The People are the master, the state and federal government are the servants. The only power they have is what the People have given them through their written constitutions. In America, and this is an important difference from Europe, individuals retain power that they have not delegated. They kept back individual liberties from government over which authority was not delegated. The exercise therof was subject to the Maxim “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” - each one must so use his own as not to injure his neighbor. (Equality of rights before the law.)

In France, the individual surrendered all his individual natural power in exchange for what was considered to be superior enumerated civil rights which were subject to the communal good.

[oneamericanvoice]

Tom McClintock is more than a promise. He delivers.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

National forests, national parks, national monuments, national wilderness lands should all be handed back to the states where they are located along with the personnel who manage those lands, for thes states to do with as they deem fit.

I wonder what that would mean for a place like Yellowstone, which is shared by Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. I suppose the three state legisl00tures could hammer out an agreement, subject to approval by Congress per the Constitution, of course.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I hope that this task force studies the ramifications of repealing the 17th Amendment, as long as they are all about dispersal of power back to the states and the people. Repeal would return us to a federal Senate, but could also give us more Democrat Senators.

[ForGod'sSake]

I more or less agree with your premise but it does raise at least one critical question: Does a State have a moral obligation if not Constitutional duty to become involved in the defense of its citizens against an overreaching feral government? Also, as the government nearer to "The People", would it not generally put the States in the positon of being more closely attuned to the will of its people?

Having read some of the Founders' thoughts and other writers that followed, it appears to me the idea was that The States themselves would be jealous guardians of their retained powers, thereby keeping the feral government in check.

I think we would all agree, something went awry.