Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dirtboy
I don't 'see' the contradiction. Can you explain further?

It's kinda subtle, but let me try. I think we would agree that, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 9th and 10th stood together as a cast iron fence around the federal government, but the Bill of Rights had little to no bearing on the states. The first eight amendments define legal rights of individuals, and the 9th and 10th define limitations on the federal government.

Now, the 14th is passed. OK, amendments 1 thru 8 of the BofR now apply to the states. But what about the 9th? Does an amendment that is meant as a constraint on federal power still apply when joined to the 14th, which extends federal power? That is the contradiction, IMO. The one reference to the 9th by SCOTUS in recent history, in the Griswald decision, was an effort by liberal justices to justify creating a new federal right under the 9th and imposing it on the states via the 14th. I don't think that you or I wanna go there...

We discussed DUI just the other day. I agreed it is a legal use of the police power of states, if used with extreme caution for violations of due process.

And the devil is in them thar details. But the feds have been the ones pushing the DUI envelope, most recently by mandating a drop in the legal limit from .1 to .08. So I think such "harm threshhold" laws, for lack of a better term, are better off at the state level - but I also acknowledge how this concept, when grabbed by busybody activists, can become a serious problem - a municipality could prohibit a McDonalds from opening because of fat issues, or a research lab from opening because of animal testing issues. But that, IMO, goes with the territory.

Government, like any other human invention from guns to butter, can be used for good or bad. But we shouldn't disregard government just because it can go bad - that, in the immortal words, requires eternal vigilance. But, if we insist on fighting among ourselves, we are not being vigilant, but misdirected. Both libertarians and conservatives, I think, can agree upon the fact that the fox should be shot if it tries to get into the henhouse. It is only when we fight with each other that the fox gets a chicken dinner...

126 posted on 08/02/2002 1:50:07 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
At # 122 I made a number of observations on the 10th and the 14th, - to which you have no comment?
Then I wrote:
I don't 'see' the contradiction. Can you explain further?

It's kinda subtle, but let me try. I think we would agree that, prior to the 14th Amendment, the 9th and 10th stood together as a cast iron fence around the federal government, but the Bill of Rights had little to no bearing on the states.

'No bearing' due to Marshalls erroneous ruling in Marbery v Madison, which the 14th made mute.

The first eight amendments define legal rights of individuals, and the 9th and 10th define limitations on the federal government.

I refered to "powers prohibited to the states" - in the 10th, - and much more, --- at the beginning of post 122, the very post you are responding to here.

Now, the 14th is passed. OK, amendments 1 thru 8 of the BofR now apply to the states.

They always did, imo. But the point is mute. See above.

But what about the 9th?

ALL the amendments applied to the states after the 14th was ratified. The 9th & 10th weren't exempt. Why would you think this so?

Does an amendment that is meant as a constraint on federal power still apply when joined to the 14th, which extends federal power? That is the contradiction, IMO.

The 14th extends *constitutional* power, not federal.
Big difference. The feds are still bound by ALL of the constitution, including the 14th itself.

The one reference to the 9th by SCOTUS in recent history, in the Griswald decision, was an effort by liberal justices to justify creating a new federal right under the 9th and imposing it on the states via the 14th. I don't think that you or I wanna go there...

The states have the option of fighting Griswald further, and have not. Its a political decision that shows a weakness in politics, not in the constitution.

---------------------------

We discussed DUI just the other day. I agreed it is a legal use of the police power of states, if used with extreme caution for violations of due process.

And the devil is in them thar details. But the feds have been the ones pushing the DUI envelope, most recently by mandating a drop in the legal limit from .1 to .08. So I think such "harm threshhold" laws, for lack of a better term, are better off at the state level.

My point above exactly. The states should be fighting the feds in court on their unconstitutional power grabs. Such 'checks & balances' aren't working because of our corrupted party politics political system.

153 posted on 08/02/2002 3:53:53 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson