• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendment?

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"Holder making mistake in not opposing recreational pot laws", Christie says.

Holder making mistake in not opposing recreational pot laws, Christie says | Politicker NJ

But, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"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."

As shown here:

Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'm under the belief that we the people aren't accountable to the government. The government is accountable to we the people who elect them.

And just remember, being a resident of the United States is only 1 letter away from being the President of the United States. The residents decide the President, not the other way around.

In Colorado and Washington, the people have clearly spoken. So to oppose them would not only be unconstitutional, but also disrespectful to the values of democracy.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

I'm under the belief that we the people aren't accountable to the government. The government is accountable to we the people who elect them.

And just remember, being a resident of the United States is only 1 letter away from being the President of the United States. The residents decide the President, not the other way around.

In Colorado and Washington, the people have clearly spoken. So to oppose them would not only be unconstitutional, but also disrespectful to the values of democracy.
I'm just going to disagree with that last part. We aren't a democracy we are a republic and the will of the people should be opposed when it conflicts with the constitution or legitimate federal laws. The constitution provides important protection from the tyranny of the majority. IMO just because the people of a state desire something, it should not necessarily be that way automatically.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

I'm just going to disagree with that last part. We aren't a democracy we are a republic and the will of the people should be opposed when it conflicts with the constitution or legitimate federal laws. The constitution provides important protection from the tyranny of the majority. IMO just because the people of a state desire something, it should not necessarily be that way automatically.
That's a really good point, actually. Because it does bother me when people try to justify eliminating the Constitution, one Amendment at a time, just because they use the excuse "Well, this many percentage of people approve of it", but what the liberal media fails to let the people know is that very often, these polls are push polls where the way the question is phrased can make someone answer a certain way, or, that they have limited options.

But, you are right. That the Constitution is there for a reason and the oaths of office include the words "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

So, thank you for adding your thoughts on this.

Anyway, what are your views on Chris Christie blaming Eric Holder for not taking action with the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington?
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

. IMO just because the people of a state desire something, it should not necessarily be that way automatically.

It's because we are a republic that if the people of a State want something they should get it. Just as if people in another state don't want it, they don't need to worry about it being imposed on them.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

It's because we are a republic that if the people of a State want something they should get it. Just as if people in another state don't want it, they don't need to worry about it being imposed on them.
With things involved with more fiscal policies, possibly.

When it comes to freedom, I think people should have more of a say in protecting and defending their freedom, than they should in taking it away. I understand that that statement could contradict itself.

The liberal media has a way of making people think it's cool to want a stricter government, and that you're a crazy looney right wing extremist if you like freedom. But the liberal media is wrong.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

It's because we are a republic that if the people of a State want something they should get it. Just as if people in another state don't want it, they don't need to worry about it being imposed on them.
Not always. If the people of a state want to violate other people's constitutional rights they should not be allowed to do so. If the people of a state want law conflicts with a federal law in pursuance with the Constitution that law should not stand.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

With things involved with more fiscal policies, possibly.

When it comes to freedom, I think people should have more of a say in protecting and defending their freedom, than they should in taking it away. I understand that that statement could contradict itself.

The liberal media has a way of making people think it's cool to want a stricter government, and that you're a crazy looney right wing extremist if you like freedom. But the liberal media is wrong.
People don't seem to realize that a smaller government means actually more government. Through decentralization authority is dispersed down to the local levels and the principle of federalism is adhered to.

This is why Roe v Wade was such a debacle. Not because it made abortion legal but because it prevented the States from making it illegal. That's an over reach. Same thing with drugs.

Taxes is different because you have assumption. Which is the only way there was a federal government and the only way to maintain one.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Not always. If the people of a state want to violate other people's constitutional rights they should not be allowed to do so. If the people of a state want law conflicts with a federal law in pursuance with the Constitution that law should not stand.


the problem is you have many too many federal laws which in themselves violate the Constitution. Further we need to get back to viewing the Constitution as it was intended. A document which limits what liberties our government's authority may take.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

the problem is you have many too many federal laws which in themselves violate the Constitution. Further we need to get back to viewing the Constitution as it was intended. A document which limits what liberties our government's authority may take.
Which is why the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws that are pursuant to the Constitution trump state laws. There are legitimate federal laws which states should not be able to nullify and there are constitutional rights that states should not be able to nullify.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Which is why the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws that are pursuant to the Constitution trump state laws. There are legitimate federal laws which states should not be able to nullify and there are constitutional rights that states should not be able to nullify.
The supremacy clause is one of the most over reaching unconstitutional documents around it directly violates the 10th amendment
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

The supremacy clause is one of the most over reaching unconstitutional documents around it directly violates the 10th amendment
How can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? There's argument that it hasn't been the best interpreted clause over the years, but it is certainly constitutional and it does not violate the 10th.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

People don't seem to realize that a smaller government means actually more government. Through decentralization authority is dispersed down to the local levels and the principle of federalism is adhered to.

This is why Roe v Wade was such a debacle. Not because it made abortion legal but because it prevented the States from making it illegal. That's an over reach. Same thing with drugs.

Taxes is different because you have assumption. Which is the only way there was a federal government and the only way to maintain one.
That itself is an example of bigger government, not smaller government. And abortion itself is a misinterpretation of freedom. They talk so much about women's rights, with no regards at all to the rights of the babies.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

How can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? There's argument that it hasn't been the best interpreted clause over the years, but it is certainly constitutional and it does not violate the 10th.
Certainly it does. History is chocked full of decisions over-turned and deemed unconstitutional later on down the line despite being deemed constitutional originally.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Certainly it does. History is chocked full of decisions over-turned and deemed unconstitutional later on down the line despite being deemed constitutional originally.
Which is why I said it isn't always interpreted correctly. The clause itself is certainly constitutional and in no way conflicts with the 10th.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

That itself is an example of bigger government, not smaller government. And abortion itself is a misinterpretation of freedom. They talk so much about women's rights, with no regards at all to the rights of the babies.
No, that is the common misconception. the size of the government is in relation to its scope of authority, not to its actual physical size. Controlling the jurisdiction its authority is given is how you control its size. If you'll follow, the federal government, should it receive its proper license and not the one it currently enjoys will be as small as a thumb tack. It's authority minimal, general, and for the most part only necessary under certain conditions, therefore its needs and size are small. As federalism and most importantly the companion principle, subsidiarity function like they should, what you will have is a myriad of individualized local, county, and state governments of all shapes and sizes only able to grow with the size of their population and only functioning in proper relation to the jurisdictional authority they are given. This keeps each of them small as thumb tacks as well.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

No, that is the common misconception. the size of the government is in relation to its scope of authority, not to its actual physical size. Controlling the jurisdiction its authority is given is how you control its size. If you'll follow, the federal government, should it receive its proper license and not the one it currently enjoys will be as small as a thumb tack. It's authority minimal, general, and for the most part only necessary under certain conditions, therefore its needs and size are small. As federalism and most importantly the companion principle, subsidiarity function like they should, what you will have is a myriad of individualized local, county, and state governments of all shapes and sizes only able to grow with the size of their population and only functioning in proper relation to the jurisdictional authority they are given. This keeps each of them small as thumb tacks as well.
But in reference to what you were saying earlier, if the smaller government at a local leads to bigger government at the national level, or vice versa, then that is only bigger government via consequence, not via action itself. You are looking at it from a consequentialist perspective, not a deontological perspective.

One shouldn't oppose smaller government out of fear of another level of government overstepping their authority to limit their freedom.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Which is why I said it isn't always interpreted correctly. The clause itself is certainly constitutional and in no way conflicts with the 10th.
Ok, my bad, I'm thinking of something else..
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Holder's position of not pursuing pot users in Washington and Colorado in not so much a constitutional issue as it is a practical one.
Catching and prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana users and sellers is an enormous financial burden on the federal government can no longer afford and it is a fruitless attempt to curtail it's use and change the American lifestyle .
Stopping states from taking away their residents voting rights through draconian voter suppression legislation, is a much better use of the Federal governments resources and a real protection of the constitution.
Holder is spot on.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reaction score
3,959
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

But in reference to what you were saying earlier, if the smaller government at a local leads to bigger government at the national level, or vice versa, then that is only bigger government via consequence, not via action itself. You are looking at it from a consequentialist perspective, not a deontological perspective.

One shouldn't oppose smaller government out of fear of another level of government overstepping their authority to limit their freedom.
It's a little too late to be getting into Mill and Kant...

Basically it is the system of checks and balances which can only be if each level is allowed its proper function. As it is it's like that fat kid on the seesaw representing the federal government on one end, immovably planted on the ground with individual, local, county, and State all up high hanging on for dear life and trying as hard as they might to bring the teeter totter even.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

Holder's position of not pursuing pot users in Washington and Colorado in not so much a constitutional issue as it is a practical one.
Catching and prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana users and sellers is an enormous financial burden on the federal government can no longer afford and it is a fruitless attempt to curtail it's use and change the American lifestyle .
Stopping states from taking away their residents voting rights through draconian voter suppression legislation, is a much better use of the Federal governments resources and a real protection of the constitution.
Holder is spot on.
I agree with the first part.

But I think I misunderstood what you said with the "Stopping states from taking away their residents voting rights through draconian voter suppression legislation, is a much better use of the Federal governments resources and a real protection of the constitution."

So you are saying you do or don't agree that states should have the right to vote on certain things like that?
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

It's a little too late to be getting into Mill and Kant...

Basically it is the system of checks and balances which can only be if each level is allowed its proper function. As it is it's like that fat kid on the seesaw representing the federal government on one end, immovably planted on the ground with individual, local, county, and State all up high hanging on for dear life and trying as hard as they might to bring the teeter totter even.
It is never too late to discuss those philosophies. It's very relevant.

By the way, not that this is relevant at all but sometimes I like to add a small bit of random useless information. As I was replying here I had a random craving for cotton candy. I don't know why but I just felt like adding that.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

I agree with the first part.

But I think I misunderstood what you said with the "Stopping states from taking away their residents voting rights through draconian voter suppression legislation, is a much better use of the Federal governments resources and a real protection of the constitution."

So you are saying you do or don't agree that states should have the right to vote on certain things like that?
If they can be shown to purposely infringe on the American peoples's right to vote, no ... the states do not have that right. Especially if it can be shown that they infringe, selectively, on any one demographic group of American citizens right to vote.
The Voting Rights Act is not dead it just needs to enforced in a different way.
Holder knows what must be done and how to do it.
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Is NJ Gov Chris Christie asking U.S. Atty Gen Eric Holder to violate 10th Amendme

"Holder making mistake in not opposing recreational pot laws", Christie says.

Holder making mistake in not opposing recreational pot laws, Christie says | Politicker NJ

But, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"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."

As shown here:

Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'm under the belief that we the people aren't accountable to the government. The government is accountable to we the people who elect them.

And just remember, being a resident of the United States is only 1 letter away from being the President of the United States. The residents decide the President, not the other way around.

In Colorado and Washington, the people have clearly spoken. So to oppose them would not only be unconstitutional, but also disrespectful to the values of democracy.
In general I would agree with states authority to make and enforce laws as their respective citizens see fit. In this case though there is a real problem that is under federal jurisdiction, that is that the transport of drugs is a cross border event. Not only state borders, but federal borders where the US has sole jurisdiction. With regard to the state borders this is a real and appropriate concern for interstate commerce. Now if the product is home grown for personal use that would be not involving interstate commerce imo, unfortunatley the wisdom the resides on the supreme court does not agree.
 
Top Bottom