What happened to the Tenth Amendment?

Sierra Times ^ | 01/23/03 | Robert Greenslade

[AdamSelene235]

Good Heavens, just because I do not participate in craven idolatry of your beloved Elite doesn't mean I object to every decent event in American history.

Getting back to my main point: Either the Constitution is incapable of preventing the type of unlimited government we suffer from today or it is was specifically designed to allow it.

You are smart enough to know the latter case is the truth. You pretty much admitted it in your "Alex and the boys" taunt.

My only criticism of Mr. Burr was he was he acted too late to stop Hamilton's sabotage of the Constitution.

Was it really necessary to allow the quartering of troops in private homes against will of the citizens?

Was it really necessary to make our current welfare payments to African dicatorships in the name of HIV prevention Constitutional?

Was it wise to allow 2 Senators and the President to ratify treaties that have nearly equal footing with the Constitution itself?

Was it wise to make the entire structure of the judiciary subject to the whims of Congress?

Of course not. These calculated acts of Constitutional sabotage were devised to reserve power for the Elite.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What Elite are you referencing? Those who played the Limosine Liberals of their day like Jefferson? There were as many of the "elite" opposed to the constitution as there were for it. Such as the richest man in NY, George Clinton, Hamilton's greatest antagonist over ratification.

The constitution was designed to provide a government sufficiently strong to preserve the Union. There is no Totalitarian government in the United States merely one reflective of the people. Hamilton often stated that no constitution meant anything if the people were corrupted, immoral or perverse. Most of the reach for powers you object to came about through Jeffersonian demagogury, amendment and judicial overreaching, not the constitution itself. Our government reflects the desire of the American people, that is who you have a beef with, not some obscure "elite."

There is little about Burr not to be critical of. He never did anything for the nation every question was "will this increase or decrease my chance for power." Certainly Hamilton did NOT sabotage the constitution. Even your lame formulation rules that out. If it were designed for "unlimited government" how did Hamilton "sabotage" that aim?
And if it were not, Hamilton was dead before Marshall expostulated Hamilton's views of the constitution.

There was no constitutional power to quarter troops on private citizens.

What does 2 Senators and the president have to do with Treaty making? Two-thirds of Senators present are necessary to ratify a treaty. And they were the law of the land even before the constitution. Check Hamilton's (Burr was co-counsel) precedent making case Rutgers vs Waddington to verify that point.

Foreign policy can take the form of AIDS funds to other countries and, while constitutional, is not referenced therein.

What better way of appointing the judiciary is there? Certainly not direct election. Come to Chicago if you believe otherwise. Judicial independence is a necessity to avoid majority tyranny.

Protection of the Nation was the reason the constitution was written not some obscure "elite." It has served us well and by any account has been a tremendous success. In fact, that success is exactly what has your tailfeathers aflutter.

[AdamSelene235]

Our government reflects the desire of the American people, that is who you have a beef with, not some obscure "elite."

You, not I are the apologist for Elitism. The rules of the game determine the nature and possible outcomes of the game. Hamilton grokked that well.

Certainly Hamilton did NOT sabotage the constitution. Even your lame formulation rules that out. If it were designed for "unlimited government" how did Hamilton "sabotage" that aim?

Using the mask of Publius, Hamilton sold the Constitution to the public as a document which would preserve a limited government. Indeed the Constitution has that form, but a careful reading reveals its author's lust for unlimited power. Hidden away in the details are the powers Hamilton didn't have the gall to ask for publicly.

There was no constitutional power to quarter troops on private citizens.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

All that is required to put troops in American's homes is a time of War (which is every other minute in modern times) and a law.

Now why did the Founding Lawyers reserve themselves that power? It certainly isn't an accident.

What does 2 Senators and the president have to do with Treaty making? Two-thirds of Senators present are necessary to ratify a treaty.

Why didn't they phrase it 2/3 rds of all Senators. As the law stands if only 3 people are in the Senate two of them and the president can make a law almost as powerful as the Constitution itself.

This is again, deliberate. Treaties are now routinely used to give the Feds municipal police powers over everything from duck hunting to wetlands "protection". Treaties are also a cute way to give away the Panama Canal without asking the House.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How do you get me saying you were an apologist for "elitism" from what I have said? I said the People determine the government not some elite.

As I have said the constitution is not a Totalitarian document but, in fact, the world's greatest anti-totalitarian document. So Madison was a power-mad dictator-to-be as well? Were there a tendency for over-riding power in the constitution why don't you propose some amendment to reduce it and bring it under control?

War overrides all laws and certainly private property is seized even under governments as weak as the Confederation. There was no need to reserve powers that have been routinely exercised since war began. Militias seized private property when expedient as well. You know very well that amendment was written because the british, in time of peace, had quartered troops in private houses. What kind of government, in time of war, would NOT quarter troops where necessary?

Please, a quorum for the Senate is a majority of Senators there could never be a session with 2 members sitting. Thus, a treaty could never be considered with less than 51 members or passed with less than 34. You really must control these fantasies they are getting embarrassing.

[AdamSelene235]

War overrides all laws

We are at war now. All all laws overridden? I would happily quarter troops *if* they asked politely.

Please, a quorum for the Senate is a majority of Senators there could never be a session with 2 members sitting. Thus, a treaty could never be considered with less than 51 members or passed with less than 34.

The quorum rule is entirely voluntary and can be abandoned if Congress wishes. The rule was adopted in 1953 and we are *still* suffering from treaties sneakily ratified prior to that date.

Were there a tendency for over-riding power in the constitution why don't you propose some amendment to reduce it and bring it under control?

I'm working on it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The quorum law is IN THE CONSTITUTION. Before you criticize it and tell me about all its problems, please read it.

War does not always override law but often does.

[AdamSelene235]

The quorum law is IN THE CONSTITUTION. Before you criticize it and tell me about all its problems, please read it.

Yes, I know but so is this.

Article 2 Section 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

According to Louis Fisher's Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President, in 1952 3 treaties were ratified with only 2 Senators on the floor.

[lugsoul]

The 9th ate it. At least as far as you folks who want the states to restrict liberty are concerned.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What treaties were those and was there a vote recorded? If that is true, and it sounds dubious at best, those treaties should be challenged as unconstitutionally adopted.

[AdamSelene235]

You come to class without doing your homework, repeatedly insult me, and now you want me to be an unpaid research assistant?

You sir, have chutzpah.

I'm on page 235 of the 1985 edition. Do your own damn research.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not reading the book which you seem to be. Or have access to it since you are referencing it. Since you won't name the treaties, I am taking that as meaning you don't know what they were.

But, if you have knowledge of treaties illegally passed, share it. I doubt that the author's claim is true at all and certainly am not interested in Wild Goose chases.

[AdamSelene235]

The phrasing is clearly "senators present". Even 2/3 rds of the quorum is a receipe for extraordinary power.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I explained that 34 Senators could ratify a treaty in an earlier post.

Of course, in the first Senate one could have been ratified with 18 votes.

[AdamSelene235]

Sounds like an invitation to circumvent the House and an opening to assume municipal police powers (which is exactly what has happened).

I'm curious now, so I'll dig up the treaties when I have time.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to wrt "circumvent the House." Actually I don't understand the whole sentence.

[veracious]

#40. You're right, the third had little attention in the courts; but the government has not tried to breach it either. Unlike the tenth amendment, which has been battered.