The truth about the world we live in

[Mileage Psycho]

6 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Bush league.  Trying to draw members in to some type of circular logic be keep asking them to explain themselves further and further in depth is gay.  An opinion is just that.  If you disagree, then state it.

Is this going to be how you "roll" this entire weekend? It appears your frustration with the loss of fellow members to your party here is starting to lead you down a road of frustration.  Get your fucking head right man!  

JT made the statement about us not following the Constitution, and he posted 7) bullet points where he thinks we are not, so identify the Articles and Sections of the Constitution that are being violated, should be easy to do.

 

 

[SnowRider]

10 hours ago, Boered said:

 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Biggie Smails said:

It's a fair question Z....people love to cite The Constitution as some sort of catch all when complaining about The Federal Government so they should be able to back it up.

I'll partially agree now that I read the last sentence in JT's post.  Ooops!  My bad....it's early and my coffee is only half consumed.  Probably why I couldn't unfuck the quoting box glitch.  

But I still don't like the tactic.  "why?",   "...but why?", "why?" or, "How?", "...but how?", "how?"  

It's reminds me of this:

[SnowRider]

Typical FSCE logic - complain about the quality of posts but when someone asks to expand on it they are ridiculed for asking.  After all it's an opinion and you're suppose to take it or leave it. 

[Zambroski]

4 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

JT made the statement about us not following the Constitution, and he posted 7) bullet points where he thinks we are not, so identify the Articles and Sections of the Constitution that are being violated, should be easy to do.

 

 

Fair enough.  See above.  

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Typical FSCE logic - complain about the quality of posts but when someone asks to expand on it they are ridiculed for asking.  After all it's an opinion and you're suppose to take it or leave it. 

Still trying to convince everyone here of your logic I see.  As usual, seems you are WAY short on the giving portion on some questions asking you to "expand" as of late...go try that.  Or better yet, just go away.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Zambroski

[Mileage Psycho]

8 hours ago, jtssrx said:

1. Social Secuity

2. Medicare/medicare/Obama care

3. Federal over reach on marriage

4. Department of education 

5. Power is suppose lie in the states. The Federal government clearly controls everything. 

6. All spending is suppose to originate in the house. It clearly doesn't anymore. 

7. The president isn't a dictator. Obama simply writes an executive order or uses a federal agency to push his agenda when congress pushed back. 

 

The constitution is clear. There are 17 enumerated powers. Non of which allow for what the federal government has become 

 

Let's start with #5 and let's temember that the Constitution was drafted and adopted because many felt the Articles of Confederation did not provide for a strong Federal government  

Article IV

SECTION 3

Share

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[SnowRider]

Just now, Zambroski said:

Still trying to convince everyone here of your logic I see.  As usual, seems you are WAY short on the giving portion on some questions asking you to expand as of late...go try that.  Or better yet, just go away.

I DGAF what people on this forum think - it's irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.  Meanwhile - you seem to think it's important for everyone to agree or they must 'go away'.  .  

[Mileage Psycho]

14 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said:

It's a fair question Z....people love to cite The Constitution as some sort of catch all when complaining about The Federal Government so they should be able to back it up.

[SnowRider]

Gotta love FSCE - where JT  is a constitutional expert and Z  is a history buff. 

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

I DGAF what people on this forum think - it's irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.  Meanwhile - you seem to think it's important for everyone to agree or they must 'go away'.  .  

Stupid whining from somebody that DOES care what people think.  Is upset about it and craves validation from strangers on a forum board.  And I certainly don't want all to agree, and we all don't on every subject.  I just hate little pussy coward trolls that cannot post any type of comprehensible explanations for their viewpoints and reverts to child like troll "look at me!!...acknowledge me!!" behavior" tantrums.

Go away dip shit.

[SnowRider]

Just now, Zambroski said:

Stupid whining from somebody that DOES care what people think.  Is upset about it and craves validation from strangers on a forum board.  And I certainly don't want all to agree, and we all don't on every subject.  I just hate little pussy coward trolls that cannot post any type of comprehensible explanations for their viewpoints and reverts to child like troll "look at me!!...acknowledge me!!" behavior" tantrums.

Go away dip shit.

If you had the balls to ever be in the minority - you'd understand the 'look at me' is simply due to ones minority opinion.  But when you always feel the need to be in the majority to validate your own personal opinions - you will never comprehend it.  

[Anler]

13 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Let's start with #5 and let's temember that the Constitution was drafted and adopted because many felt the Articles of Confederation did not provide for a strong Federal government  

Article IV

SECTION 3

Share

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

Yeah but jt gets his constitution briefings from Conspiracy America so....

[Zambroski]

Just now, SnowRider said:

If you had the balls to ever be in the minority - you'd understand the 'look at me' is simply due to ones minority opinion.  But when you always feel the need to be in the majority to validate your own personal opinions - you will never comprehend it.  

I am in the minority.  And believe it or not, you are in the majority.

[SnowRider]

Just now, Zambroski said:

I am in the minority.  And believe it or not, you are in the majority.

I'm referring to this forum.  Anybody with a liberal opinion is a focal point of the conservative majority. 

[Zambroski]

Just now, SnowRider said:

I'm referring to this forum.  Anybody with a liberal opinion is a focal point of the conservative majority. 

It's the liberal opinion, not the "body" that is the focal point. We're done here.

Oh, and....

[Jimmy Snacks]

4 hours ago, SnowRider said:

I'm referring to this forum.  Anybody with a liberal opinion is a focal point of the conservative majority. 

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with your endless name calling, blather, bloviating and look at me posts.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Biggie Smails

[Capt.Storm]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

Gotta love FSCE - where JT  is a constitutional expert and Z  is a history buff. 

and me?

I just want to butt fawk you ..you know..spread the love!

[jtssrx]

There are 17 enumerated powers article 1 section 8. No of which provides for anything we today.

Look at the tenth amendment as well. Anything not expressly written in the constitution is the right of the state or people. It's clear we left a monarchy for a reason. We did t want centralized power. That's why there are three branches of government sharing equal power. This is why the constitution shows that states to have the ultimate say and confines the federal government to do 17 specific things

 

 

The Original Meaning of the Tenth Amendment and “Expressly” Delegated Power

In Loyola Law Review’s The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and “Expressly” Delegated Power, Kurt T. Lash delved into the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment. The following is an overview of the paper, which is a must-read for anyone wanting to learn about the original meaning of the 10th Amendment.

Beginning with the Articles of Confederation and moving through the post-ratification history, Lash contends that narrowly construing the Constitution’s expressed powers as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments requires, and not Justice Marshall’s wider interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch, does a better job at reaching the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment.

Background

Lash sets the history of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment against their predecessor, the Articles of Confederation. Article II of the Confederation stated, “[e]ach state retains . . . every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

James Madison, in Federalist No. 44, argued that including the term “expressly” in the Constitution would force Congress to do nothing in times of need or to work around the term, the former disarming Congress and the latter forcing Congress to disregard the Constitution. Madison, in hopes of garnering support to ratify the proposed Constitution, reassured Anti-Federalists that a bill of rights would address the issue of the enumerated powers.

Understanding “Expressly”

Lash points to a false dichotomy regularly put forth by scholars. The argument holds that the inclusion of “expressly” in the Tenth Amendment means Congress only has the authority to exercise enumerated powers in a literal sense without any leeway for necessary and proper actions, or omitting it means that Congress is free to broadly exercise any and every imaginable power to further its perceived objects. But because the Tenth Amendment is grounded in the Articles of Confederation and state constitutional convention history, those narrations are considerably important. The history shows a third option reflected the original understanding of expressed powers more accurately. The ratifiers widely understood that “narrow construction” of enumerated powers was evident, even without the term “expressly” present in the Constitution or one of its amendments.

This “narrow construction” reassurance was repeatedly used by Federalists to guarantee Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would bind the Federal Government to execute the tasks only which it had been delegated. With this understanding, ratification was successful and the House turned to the proposal of a bill of rights.

The Proposal of a Tenth Amendment

Upon ratification of the Constitution, states soon began to propose amendments. As Lash notes, “[a]mong the most common of these were declarations or amendments mirroring the language of Article II and the limited delegation to congress of only express powers.” The Federalist advocates had assured the ratifiers that the Constitution would have a narrow interpretation with powers “expressly” reserved to the states. The states wanted it in writing.

In Congress, James Madison and Thomas Tucker clashed during debates over whether or not to include the term “expressly” in the Tenth Amendment; Tucker sought to include the term, while Madison objected on the belief that it would be “impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers….”

Tucker and Madison did not understand “expressly” to have the same meaning. Madison understood that inclusion of the term “might be construed to deny the government even those means ‘clearly comprehended’ by the express grant.” Tucker, conversely, believed it “was understood that expressly delegated powers allowed for the exercise of all specific powers ‘clearly comprehended within any accurate definition of the general power.’”

Exclusion of the term, therefore, was no so much about a disdain or obsession with an extremely limiting or expansive interpretation of power, but a disagreement based a mutual misunderstanding of what “expressly” meant. As Lash notes, “[p]ut another way, there is no evidence that Madison or anyone else in House of Representatives rejected the general idea that Congress had none but expressly delegated powers properly understood.”

After two attempts in the House to include “expressly” in the Tenth Amendment, the effort was put to rest.

What does a “narrow construction” mean concerning the rejection of the term “expressly” in the Tenth Amendment? The common understanding of a narrow construction, coupled with a strong appreciation of federalism, correctly gives the omission of the term less significance than it has been given by most modern scholars. Federalist ideals did not disappear with the omission of “expressly,” and ratification of the Tenth Amendment without the term did nothing to negate the ratifiers’ belief that the Constitution would hold the Federal Government to its enumerated powers with narrow ancillary power retained only to effect the authority it had been delegated.

The Ninth Compliments the Tenth

The two Amendments, taken together, are powerful tools of constitutional construction that reinforce the idea of a “narrow construction” of the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment undoubtedly states that the Constitution’s enumeration of certain rightsdoesn’t permit Congress to deny or disparage other unenumerated rights. While there is some disagreement as to the scope of the Ninth Amendment, Lash notes that, at a minimum, the Ninth Amendment mandates that Congress interpret the Constitution in a way which does not limit the rights of the people to only those that are included in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment adds to this by reserving powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the states or to the people. The Tenth affirms, in writing, the principled assurance Federalists gave to the ratifiers that enumerated powers were to be narrowly construed, while the plenary remainder was delegated to the states and the people.

Examining these two Amendments together shows they function

“as dual limits on the power of the federal government to intrude upon matters thought best left to state control. As Madison put it in a 1791 speech to the House of Representatives, the Ninth Amendment prevented a ‘latitude of interpretation’ of federal power while the Tenth ‘exclud[ed] every source of power not within the Constitution itself.’”

Conclusion

Kurt T. Lash’s article richly narrates the Tenth Amendment’s original meaning in a way that is easy to read. More importantly, Lash’s research sheds invaluable light on the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment, and his historical research is well-supported with numerous citations and explanatory footnotes. Lash shows how the Tenth Amendment’s history reinforces the idea of federalism, provides for a narrow reading of the Constitution’s enumerated powers even without the term “expressly,” and, coupled with the Ninth Amendment, prevents a latitude of interpretation that would infringe on the people’s ability to self-govern. The article displays important history that must not be forgotten, and that Congress should oft be reminded.

Related posts