Taking bets! Feds vs States

[Baralis]

If anyone follows the Glenn Beck program and recent news...

Several states are inacting legislation which says that in their state that the federal government cannot regulate firearms that are made in their state and remain in their state. I believe this is a precursor for things to come, but back on topic.

On todays show they had a 10th amendment expert on the show and he stated that he believed the federal court will squash these states rights by expanding the right of federal regulation into "anything that may interfere with interstate trade". So the federal government may say that guns can be considered a tool to commit a crime that interferes with interstate trade.

I feel he may be right. I do not see the federal government relinquishing any of the power it has taken. I think the federal government will once again overstep their power in its quest to gain more power.

What do you think? And will states continue to try and take back their rightful powers?

 

[phattonez]

There has been no such thing as state's rights since the Civil War.

 

[Joe Steel]

What do you think? And will states continue to try and take back their rightful powers?

States have only the powers the national government allows them. See Article VI of the U. S. Constitution.

 

[phattonez]

States have only the powers the national government allows them. See Article VI of the U. S. Constitution.

10th amendment: "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."

kthnx, bye.

 

[Joe Steel]

10th amendment: "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."

kthnx, bye.

The Tenth Amendment reserves all power to the People. Any time the People wish, they can order their creature, the U. S. government, to do anything they wish.

 

[phattonez]

The Tenth Amendment reserves all power to the People. Any time the People wish, they can order their creature, the U. S. government, to do anything they wish.

So let's just ignore any mention of the states there. :2wave:

Look at that phrase "nor prohibited by it to the States" and tell me what it means.

 

[Wessexman]

States have only the powers the national government allows them. See Article VI of the U. S. Constitution.

What a statement.

This is one reason why EU federalism must be fought.

 

[Wessexman]

The Tenth Amendment reserves all power to the People. Any time the People wish, they can order their creature, the U. S. government, to do anything they wish.

The people live in the states however. They are not atoms. The states are historic bodies with something of the position of at least quasi-sovereign entities. To ignore that is to ignore the way the constitution was set up and its history. Only those rights the federal gov't is bound to protect are to be settled outside the people gathered in their states.

 

[Baralis]

Originaly it was local > State > Federal, but over the decades the federal government has continously taken more and more power so we have just the opposit Federal > State > Local. We need to fix this before its to late!

 

[Joe Steel]

So let's just ignore any mention of the states there. :2wave:

Look at that phrase "nor prohibited by it to the States" and tell me what it means.

The phrase means states have some powers.

The problem is, they're not listed. That means the national government can claim or deny any power it wishes and no one would be able to say the it was outside its authority.

 

[Joe Steel]

The people live in the states however. They are not atoms. The states are historic bodies with something of the position of at least quasi-sovereign entities. To ignore that is to ignore the way the constitution was set up and its history. Only those rights the federal gov't is bound to protect are to be settled outside the people gathered in their states.

I regard the states as mere administrative conveniences, at least ideally. As a matter of fact, they do have significant power and authority. Too bad. They're relics of the 18th century and create more harm than good.

 

[Joe Steel]

Originaly it was local > State > Federal, but over the decades the federal government has continously taken more and more power so we have just the opposit Federal > State > Local. We need to fix this before its to late!

We should dissolve the states. They're sources of too much legislative mischief. They make too much bad law.

 

[phattonez]

The phrase means states have some powers.

The problem is, they're not listed. That means the national government can claim or deny any power it wishes and no one would be able to say the it was outside its authority.

:rofl
No, it means that the federal government does not have any powers that are not explicitly listed to it in the constitution.

 

[Goshin]

The problem is, they're not listed. That means the national government can claim or deny any power it wishes and no one would be able to say the it was outside its authority.

I regard the states as mere administrative conveniences, at least ideally. As a matter of fact, they do have significant power and authority. Too bad. They're relics of the 18th century and create more harm than good.

We should dissolve the states. They're sources of too much legislative mischief. They make too much bad law.

I haven't heard so much bad interpretation of the Constitution and ignoring of history in one place in a long time.

Seperation of powers, anyone? The States as a "check and balance" to the Fed?

 

[Baralis]

We should dissolve the states. They're sources of too much legislative mischief. They make too much bad law.

I think that is a terrible idea. I would rather have 50 flavors that a person could choose from (if states still had the powers they should) vs. one flavor that everyone has to live with. Not to mention giving the Federal government full power over everything would lead us to less and less choice in our own lives.

 

[phattonez]

I think that is a terrible idea. I would rather have 50 flavors that a person could choose from (if states still had the powers they should) vs. one flavor that everyone has to live with. Not to mention giving the Federal government full power over everything would lead us to less and less choice in our own lives.

Hey, you know, I think I understand now what Hannah Arendt was saying (some reading I had to do for my poli sci class). Are we really free when we are limited by the options afforded us, or is freedom being able to make our own option? Very interesting comparison.

It's like this: a guy holds up a gun to you. He says that you can either give him your wallet or your cell phone. You have a choice, but would you really say that you're free?

 

[Ethereal]

We should dissolve the states. They're sources of too much legislative mischief. They make too much bad law.

Your political lean is "very liberal". Don't you mean "very fascist?"

 

[Joe Steel]

No, it means that the federal government does not have any powers that are not explicitly listed to it in the constitution.

It means nothing of the sort.

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless. It merely states the obvious: the national government has some powers, the states have some powers or they don't and all the rest are vested in the People.

That's not very helpful...unless the Amendment is read as merely a sop to the alarmists of the era, primarily state legislators who feared they were giving-up too much. They were giving-up virtually everything but the Tenth Amendment placated them. It made them think they still were relevant. They weren't. See Article VI.

 

[phattonez]

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless. It merely states the obvious: the national government has some powers, the states have some powers or they don't and all the rest are vested in the People.

Are you reading the same amendment that I'm reading? Whatever is not specifically laid out to the federal government in the constitution, the government cannot do it. The people themselves can do it, but not the government. So if the people want the government to be able to do it, then you need an amendment. Do you know what that means?

War on Drugs: unconstitutional.
Welfare: unconstitutional
Board of Education: unconstitutional
Social Security: unconstitutional

etc.

 

[Wessexman]

I regard the states as mere administrative conveniences, at least ideally. As a matter of fact, they do have significant power and authority. Too bad. They're relics of the 18th century and create more harm than good.

That is nice, but it is not an accurate example of what is fact nor the history of states and US constitution.

They are bulwarks of liberty unfortunately too often overrun by aggressive federalism.

 

[Wessexman]

The phrase means states have some powers.

The problem is, they're not listed. That means the national government can claim or deny any power it wishes and no one would be able to say the it was outside its authority.

Wrong. The only way a constitution can actually work is that it grants all the powers to the gov't in question and any not granted is reserved to the people or states. So whatever is not granted to the feds by the constitution directly they have no power or authority to do.

 

[Joe Steel]

I haven't heard so much bad interpretation of the Constitution and ignoring of history in one place in a long time.

The problem seems to be with your standards. Apparently, you've become infatuated with right wing distortions and misrepresentation and think they're serious scholarship. You should reevaluate and redirect your study to serious analysis.

 

[Joe Steel]

I think that is a terrible idea. I would rather have 50 flavors that a person could choose from (if states still had the powers they should) vs. one flavor that everyone has to live with. Not to mention giving the Federal government full power over everything would lead us to less and less choice in our own lives.

Everyone is entitled to his wishes. Government can't always accomodate them, though. For instance, had we been faithful the 50 flavors, life in the South would have remained quite distasteful for black Americans.

 

[Joe Steel]

Your political lean is "very liberal". Don't you mean "very fascist?"

No. Actually, I think of my self as more sociaist than liberal. I favor democracy rather than the special interests dictatorships we find in state government.

 

[Joe Steel]

Are you reading the same amendment that I'm reading? Whatever is not specifically laid out to the federal government in the constitution, the government cannot do it. The people themselves can do it, but not the government. So if the people want the government to be able to do it, then you need an amendment. Do you know what that means?

The People created the government and empowered it to act for the general welfare. Nothing further is necessary but, occasionally, to calm political passions, we amend the Constitution. That's OK for momentous issues but for day-to-day government, the normal process is sufficent.