Cultureculturestatesrights

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 06:17 AM

the idea that the federal government has no place in any policy

because of the 10th amendment is misplaced.

the constitution gives the congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce and to make laws. more importantly the 14th amendment supersedes all previous amendments, ratifying the victory over "states rights" on the battlefield. states, for well over a century, are mere administrative conveniences.

if the energy expended on dismantling the federal government were spent instead on reforming wasteful agencies (starting with dod) and prosecuting corrupt officials (from epa to cia) we could live in a nation worthy of "exceptionalism."



9 replies, 144 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply the idea that the federal government has no place in any policy (Original post)
rampartb Mar 17 OP
NeoKhan Mar 17 #1
rampartb Mar 17 #2
NeoKhan Mar 17 #3
rampartb Mar 17 #4
NeoKhan Mar 17 #5
rampartb Mar 17 #6
NeoKhan Mar 17 #7
rampartb Mar 17 #8
NeoKhan Mar 17 #9

Response to rampartb (Original post)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 07:32 AM

1. It would help if you honestly cited the proposition.

No one says the federal government doesn't have any say on issues. We say:

The federal government has no say on matters that are not ENUMERATED in the federal constitution.

And the ACW did not abrogate the 10th Amendment. The Union did not fight to abolish the Bill of Rights, it fought to preserve the union.

If anything the 14th Amendment reaffirms the rights of citizens under the 10th Amendment just as the 14th reaffirms all other rights, i.e. 1st, 2nd, etc. States cannot give away the 10A rights of their citizens just as they cannot take away their citizens' rights to peaceably assemble.

And please take note: if you hold to your anti-10A argument then you are arguing AG Sessions is obligated to prosecute the marijuana industries in states that have legalized mj.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoKhan (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 08:38 AM

2. the fact that national marijuana exists affirms my premise

or please cite that enumerated power.

the 14th amendment affirms rights of citizens, not of states, most importantly equal protection under the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 10:11 AM

3. "please cite that enumerated power."

Violation of a law is not the same as repeal of the law.

The fact that the feds operate outside their enumerated powers is proof of nothing except the fact the feds operate outside their enumerated power. By what is constitutional, the feds should have no say in regulating drugs beyond what crosses the international or state borders.

And I say that as someone who is perfectly comfortable with US Special Forces taking out narco-cartels.

You act as if all things the government does is de facto legal, just and moral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoKhan (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 10:52 AM

4. no, not at all

marijuana prohibition being a good example, neither just nor moral, but unquestionably constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 11:26 AM

5. Then the same could be said for alcohol prohibition. Yet, that required a constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoKhan (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 01:52 PM

6. the supremacy clause of article vi might explain the difference

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”


there were no treaties requiring the prohibition of alcohol. numerous treaties require drug prohibition; including the "single convention" of 1961 requiring marijuana prohibition. these treaties, once ratified by the senate, became the supreme law of the land under article vi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 02:07 PM

7. So start adhering to the 10th Amendment which is part of the Constitution.

these treaties, once ratified by the senate, became the supreme law of the land under article vi.


No treaty can abrogate the constitution because treaties draw their authority from the constitution. For example, a treaty cannot be used to deny a US citizen of their rights to due process.

However, as a treaty is party of foreign relations the feds are within their authority to restrict what crosses the international border via treaty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoKhan (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 17, 2017, 02:36 PM

8. not quite

missouri vs holland

In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that protection of a State's quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a State to enjoin enforcement of an unconstitutional federal regulation, but that the federal government's implementation of the treaty at issue was constitutional, trumping state concerns about enumerated powers or abrogation of states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Cultureculturestatesrights