10th Amendment -- Applicable how?

[scrapinpeg]

Federal powers have been so broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court, and so broadly wielded by Congress, the Executive and the nonrepresentative Agencies, that some constitutional scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment is no longer applicable.

What do you think?

===
Article X:
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.

[Rogue]

It is still applicable, even desirable, to follow this Law.
Unfortunately, when Congress/President over step their Constitutional bouds there is a "Benevolent" pourpose behind it. Anyone who apposes it are demonized and their opposition to such a worthy cause is used against them in the next compaign.
So politicians use our money to buy their re-election.

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

[Epee_Pox]

I remember that some of the loudest howling during the Bork confirmation hearings was when he declared that the 10th Amendment was now "moot." He managed to piss off people on both sides of the aisle with that one.

Probably because he was right.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Probably because he was right.

Easiest way to piss off everyone....

-B :)

[prototoast]

Yeah... 10th ammendment is completely ignored by almost every politician. It's a real shame, too.

[gojujay]

What can you do when you have a compliant judiciary? When all three rings of the government circus are in collusion, what options do we, as a Sovereign People have?

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by gojujay

What can you do when you have a compliant judiciary? When all three rings of the government circus are in collusion, what options do we, as a Sovereign People have?

Well, we could revolt.
But the Gov. has effectively placed itself as provider/benefactor, in some way or another, to nearly half the population. So the Gov. will have to severely impose restrictions to freedoms to launch those people in to revolution.
I fear we are the frog in the pot of water who has had the heat slowly turned up as not to realize that it’s about to boil.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by gojujay

What can you do when you have a compliant judiciary? When all three rings of the government circus are in collusion, what options do we, as a Sovereign People have?

"The day those three stalwarts band together is the day pigs fly!" ~ James Goldman, The Lion in Winter

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by lochinvar

"The day those three stalwarts band together is the day pigs fly!" ~ James Goldman, The Lion in Winter

But have that day ever been closer than today? After all, one party has the white house, majority in both houses, and its presidents has appointed most of the supreme judges. Has that ever happened before, and if so, when was the latest time?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Larrison]

I believe around 1940 the Democratic party controlled the presidency and both houses, and had nominated most of the supreme court justices. So its not a new situation --

What folks seem to be reacting to is the rapid change -- in the 1980's there was a Democratic President, and both a democratic house and senate. In particular, the House had been controlled by the democrats for 40 years until 1994.

At least we're not looking at something like Roosevelt did back in the early 30's -- he tried to expand the court so he could appoint new supreme court judges attuned to his political philosophy and take control of the court, since the court had been striking down laws he had been recommending and Congress passing.

[Epee_Pox]

I think you meant there was a Republican president in the 1980s. There was only a Democrat in the White House during 1980 and the first 20 days of January 1981.

When I was in college in the Bush Sr. years, there was a lot of griping among poli-sci types (especially my professors) that the people kept electing Republican presidents but mostly Democratic representatives and local officials. This was seen as a problem.* It was a recipe for stalemate, for failure. It was seriously proposed by one or two that a parliamentary system, where the government was controlled by all one party, would be preferable.

Now that one party does control the legislature and the executive, I've noticed many of the same people griping that this has come to pass. I guess they only wanted one-party control so long as it was their party.

---
* Rather than reflecting, say, the public's preference for local pols who promise lots of spending and programs for their locality (something the Democratic party had a lock on), but also for a strong optimistic national leader (not something the Carter/Mondale/Dukakis Democratic party was offering at the time).

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I think you meant there was a Republican president in the 1980s. There was only a Democrat in the White House during 1980 and the first 20 days of January 1981.

When I was in college in the Bush Sr. years, there was a lot of griping among poli-sci types (especially my professors) that the people kept electing Republican presidents but mostly Democratic representatives and local officials. This was seen as a problem.* It was a recipe for stalemate, for failure. It was seriously proposed by one or two that a parliamentary system, where the government was controlled by all one party, would be preferable.

Now that one party does control the legislature and the executive, I've noticed many of the same people griping that this has come to pass. I guess they only wanted one-party control so long as it was their party.

---
* Rather than reflecting, say, the public's preference for local pols who promise lots of spending and programs for their locality (something the Democratic party had a lock on), but also for a strong optimistic national leader (not something the Carter/Mondale/Dukakis Democratic party was offering at the time).

I think that one of the strengths of the multi-party system is that so often it produces a stalemate. The government is best when it does the least.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

"The day those three stalwarts band together is the day pigs fly!" ~ James Goldman, The Lion in Winter

Bacon to go!!