Can the Tenth Amendment Save Us?
by Cal Thomas

Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government
excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the
power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the
juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this
administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the
Constitution?

The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals
would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and
persistence would allow. The Left has put aside the original
Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows
them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which
to do it.

Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the Tenth
Amendment offers the best opportunity. The Tenth Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so
that it became open to broader interpretation. Rob Natelson, professor
of Constitutional Law and Legal History at the University of Montana,
has written that even before Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing
scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted,
especially, "how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-
down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the
false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent
leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for
constitutional activists, and more."

While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the
federal welfare state, Natelson says it has never, except in wartime,
"authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what
is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and
individual justices -- even 'liberal' justices -- have said repeatedly
that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go." ...
"Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that if Congress were to use
its legitimate powers as a 'pretext' for assuming an unauthorized
power, 'it would become the painful duty' of the Court 'to say that
such an act was not the law of the land.'"

It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether
Congress is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of
our economy and change how we access health insurance and health care.

Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay, "Is ObamaCare
Constitutional?" (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-
constitutional), using the Court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe,
he writes, the court struck down state abortion laws that "intruded
into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in
Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention
contemplated by schemes such as HB3200. 'Global budgeting' and 'single-
payer' plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme
Court's Substantive Due Process rules."

Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford
Institute, tells me, "Although the states surrendered many of their
powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and
inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's
text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that
would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system
in which the State and federal governments would exercise concurrent
authority over the people. The Court's jurisprudence makes clear that
the federal government may not compel the states to enact or
administer a federal regulatory program."

Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks
to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult
to circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state
unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "...or to the people."

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM,
dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and
who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now
exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment
is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the
Left.

townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/11/03/
can_the_tenth_amendment_save_us

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:33:42 -0800, Last Post wrote:
Can the Tenth Amendment Save Us?
by Cal Thomas

Nice racket.

Republicans squander this, democrats squander that.. so another big
'change' happens, another form of squandering.

•• No wonder you trimmed the constitution from the newsgroups line

On Nov 3, 9:33 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:





Can the Tenth Amendment Save Us?
by Cal Thomas

Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government
excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the
power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the
juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this
administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the
Constitution?

The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals
would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and
persistence would allow. The Left has put aside the original
Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows
them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which
to do it.

Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the Tenth
Amendment offers the best opportunity. The Tenth Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so
that it became open to broader interpretation. Rob Natelson, professor
of Constitutional Law and Legal History at the University of Montana,
has written that even before Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing
scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted,
especially, "how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-
down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the
false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent
leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for
constitutional activists, and more."

While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the
federal welfare state, Natelson says it has never, except in wartime,
"authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what
is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and
individual justices -- even 'liberal' justices -- have said repeatedly
that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go." ...
"Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that if Congress were to use
its legitimate powers as a 'pretext' for assuming an unauthorized
power, 'it would become the painful duty' of the Court 'to say that
such an act was not the law of the land.'"

It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether
Congress is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of
our economy and change how we access health insurance and health care.

Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay, "Is ObamaCare
Constitutional?" (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-
constitutional), using the Court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe,
he writes, the court struck down state abortion laws that "intruded
into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in
Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention
contemplated by schemes such as HB3200. 'Global budgeting' and 'single-
payer' plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme
Court's Substantive Due Process rules."

Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford
Institute, tells me, "Although the states surrendered many of their
powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and
inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's
text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that
would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system
in which the State and federal governments would exercise concurrent
authority over the people. The Court's jurisprudence makes clear that
the federal government may not compel the states to enact or
administer a federal regulatory program."

Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks
to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult
to circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state
unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "...or to the people."

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM,
dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and
who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now
exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment
is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the
Left.

townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/11/03/
can_the_tenth_amendment_save_us

Cal Thomas is wet behind the ears.

The 10th amendment gives states certain rights

but before all that it
clearly says in the 6th article that NO STATE law, no state court and
no state constitution can be contrary to the US Constitution; that it
is the supreme law of the land.

People used the states rights ploy for slavery and finally, due to
their obstinacy and pugnaciousness and war, we had to craft the 13th
and 14th amendments which really said the Bill of Rights is for
everyone and no state could stray from the rights guaranteed by the
federal constitution. (The Bill of Rights was for everyone?) The 6th
said that anyway but vaguely enough so that we had a civil war.

Now other wet behind the ears politicians say gay rights is up to the
states. Not true. The fourteenth amendment has settled the issue. Its
just a matter of time before people finally wake up to realizing that
the states rights argument always seems to be used to fight progress.

Just look at their history. States rights folk were for segregation,
too. Although the US Constitution set the standard for banning
religious tests, NH required anyone who ran for office to be a
Protestant Christian until 1877.

States rights my ass.- Hide quoted text -

On Nov 3, 9:33 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Can the Tenth Amendment Save Us?
by Cal Thomas

Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government
excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the
power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the
juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this
administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the
Constitution?

The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals
would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and
persistence would allow. The Left has put aside the original
Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows
them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which
to do it.

Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the Tenth
Amendment offers the best opportunity. The Tenth Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so
that it became open to broader interpretation. Rob Natelson, professor
of Constitutional Law and Legal History at the University of Montana,
has written that even before Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing
scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted,
especially, "how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-
down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the
false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent
leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for
constitutional activists, and more."

While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the
federal welfare state, Natelson says it has never, except in wartime,
"authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what
is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and
individual justices -- even 'liberal' justices -- have said repeatedly
that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go." ...
"Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that if Congress were to use
its legitimate powers as a 'pretext' for assuming an unauthorized
power, 'it would become the painful duty' of the Court 'to say that
such an act was not the law of the land.'"

It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether
Congress is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of
our economy and change how we access health insurance and health care.

Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay, "Is ObamaCare
Constitutional?" (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-
constitutional), using the Court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe,
he writes, the court struck down state abortion laws that "intruded
into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in
Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention
contemplated by schemes such as HB3200. 'Global budgeting' and 'single-
payer' plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme
Court's Substantive Due Process rules."

Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford
Institute, tells me, "Although the states surrendered many of their
powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and
inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's
text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that
would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system
in which the State and federal governments would exercise concurrent
authority over the people. The Court's jurisprudence makes clear that
the federal government may not compel the states to enact or
administer a federal regulatory program."

Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks
to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult
to circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state
unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "...or to the people."

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM,
dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and
who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now
exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment
is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the
Left.

townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/11/03/
can_the_tenth_amendment_save_us

Cal Thomas is wet behind the ears.

The 10th amendment gives states certain rights but before all that it
clearly says in the 6th article that NO STATE law, no state court and
no state constitution can be contrary to the US Constitution; that it
is the supreme law of the land.

People used the states rights ploy for slavery and finally, due to
their obstinacy and pugnaciousness and war, we had to craft the 13th
and 14th amendments which really said the Bill of Rights is for
everyone and no state could stray from the rights guaranteed by the
federal constitution. (The Bill of Rights was for everyone?) The 6th
said that anyway but vaguely enough so that we had a civil war.

Now other wet behind the ears politicians say gay rights is up to the
states. Not true. The fourteenth amendment has settled the issue. Its
just a matter of time before people finally wake up to realizing that
the states rights argument always seems to be used to fight progress.

Just look at their history. States rights folk were for segregation,
too. Although the US Constitution set the standard for banning
religious tests, NH required anyone who ran for office to be a
Protestant Christian until 1877.

States rights my ass.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:17:16 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
The "rights" issue primary refers to the spirit and intent of the
triumverate (people/state/federal), whereas the states and the people
each being a sovereign entity having "rights" that could not be
legislated out of existance by an overarching and tyrannical federal
government, hence Amendments IX and X.

Nonsense

They are NOT "soverign entities", you  mindless moron

The federal government is superior, States are
creations of the federal government, cities/counties
creations of the state.

In all cases---the federal constitution cannot be
abrogated by the lesser venues--by enacting laws that
weaking or alter what the federal constitution gives

Just look at their history. States rights folk were for segregation,
too. Although the US Constitution set the standard for banning
religious tests, NH required anyone who ran for office to be a
Protestant Christian until 1877.

States rights my ass.


OK. You believe that an all-powerful central government is the answer.
We don't.

I predict that at a point not far in the future, you will be challenged
to die for your beliefs.

Since you've included alt.politics.usa.constitution in your rant, be
aware the usual posts here refer to the legal aspect of the US
Constitution.

The "rights" issue primary refers to the spirit and intent of the
triumverate (people/state/federal), whereas the states and the people
each being a sovereign entity having "rights" that could not be
legislated out of existance by an overarching and tyrannical federal
government, hence Amendments IX and X.

They are NOT "soverign entities", you  mindless moron

Really? So you believe states are not "soverign entities"?

The federal government is superior, States are
creations of the federal government, cities/counties
creations of the state.

I see. So you believe "States are creations of the federal
government", eh?

In all cases---the federal constitution cannot be
abrogated by the lesser venues--by enacting laws that
weaking or alter what the federal constitution gives

I see...so the federal government has the legal constitutional
authority to pass laws that include any and all aspects of the
governmental, business and individual issues with the police power to
back this position with the Court's permission?

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:24:15 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
They are NOT "soverign entities", you  mindless moron

Really? So you believe states are not  "soverign entities"?

Not compared to the Federal constitution

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:24:15 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
The federal government is superior, States are
creations of the federal government, cities/counties
creations of the state.

I see. So you believe "States are creations of the federal
government", eh?

So does the USSC