The most useless amendment today: The 10th Amendment

[fredmertz]

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."

On the surface, this seems like it's granting the states and people quite a bit of power. At the time of debating it, the writers initially had the words 'expressly delegated' written into the constitution. They debated, of course, and took out the word 'expressly' so that the US Congress had some wiggle room. Some even argued the amendment was obviously true and unnecessary. Now today the exact opposite is true.

Today I cannot imagine a law that the US Congress could pass that couldn't be possibly interpreted by the SCOTUS to fall under some combination of clauses in the US: i.e. necessary and proper clause, commerce clause, etc based on interpretation and precedence. If this is the case, then we must ask ourselves what purpose the 10th amendment has.

We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol in the US. The interpretation is changing. Which means the value of the words in the constitution are meaning less today than yesterday. We're on the path to it meaning nothing at all. Supreme power to our national government. With supreme power, imagine what happens if the wrong person is elected into office.

Folks, we need to start asking the simple questions again. Not the complex questions of 'how can we interpret this clause' to push our sides' agenda but rather: is this the path we want to be on?

 

[coolwalker]

The interpretation is changing...well, it shouldn't be changing. It should remain solid. it is one of the bricks on which our nation came to be and removal of a brick on a structure weakens the structure. Altering the compound of the brick weakens it as well. Just because you find it wrong pits you against the finest minds of the time period in which the document was drafted.

Leave our Constitution alone and intact.

 

[Ockham]

The interpretation is changing...well, it shouldn't be changing. It should remain solid. it is one of the bricks on which our nation came to be and removal of a brick on a structure weakens the structure. Altering the compound of the brick weakens it as well. Just because you find it wrong pits you against the finest minds of the time period in which the document was drafted.

Leave our Constitution alone and intact.

And the bolded part is exactly what is being done, purposely, consciously and out in the open. But most don't mind it.... when it all crashes down one day, everyone will be asking "How did that happen?" Stupid is as stupid does after all... (Forrest Gump was a Genius).

 

[coolwalker]

And the bolded part is exactly what is being done, purposely, consciously and out in the open. But most don't mind it.... when it all crashes down one day, everyone will be asking "How did that happen?" Stupid is as stupid does after all... (Forrest Gump was a Genius).

...and when that happens, we will probably have Moderators that will not just "ban" us for a few days for what they deem improper, but place us under arrest.

 

[marduc]

All this time I thought the 18th was the most useless.

 

[coolwalker]

All this time I thought the 18th was the most useless.

There is not a single word, sentence or paragraph that is useless in this grand document.

 

[fredmertz]

All this time I thought the 18th was the most useless.

The 18th amendment is a necessary part of our history. It is a prime example of how Congress needs to amend the constitution if it wants to try to reach beyond the powers delegated to it in the constitution.

 

[marduc]

ok.. this audience is not much for tongue in cheek humor I see.

 

[coolwalker]

ok.. this audience is not much for tongue in cheek humor I see.

There is no humor in debasing the constitution.

 

[molten_dragon]

There is no humor in debasing the constitution.

Sure there is. You just didn't think it was funny. There's a big difference between those two things.

 

[fredmertz]

There is no humor in debasing the constitution.

now THIS was humorous.

 

[marduc]

now THIS was humorous.

Agreed. I admit it, I had a good chuckle when I read that.

 

[coolwalker]

Agreed. I admit it, I had a good chuckle when I read that.

...and this is an example of how Rome fell.

 

[Slartibartfast]

ok.. this audience is not much for tongue in cheek humor I see.

Personally, I am betting on the third being the most useless.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I'm pretty sure that the 3rd Amendment is the most useless ever. The Supreme Court has never bothered to interpret it, because it's never had to. The 3rd Amendment has received peripheral mentions in cases that had no direct relation to the Amendment itself, but that's it.

It's a wonderful immunity that has only been invoked once in a court, and never before the Supreme Court. It'll probably end up being the one right the government never takes away, simply because it's impractical to do so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm pretty sure that the 3rd Amendment is the most useless ever. The Supreme Court has never bothered to interpret it, because it's never had to. The 3rd Amendment has received peripheral mentions in cases that had no direct relation to the Amendment itself, but that's it.

It's a wonderful immunity that has only been invoked once in a court, and never before the Supreme Court. It'll probably end up being the one right the government never takes away, simply because it's impractical to do so.

There is, in my opinion, a rather subtle aspect to the Third Amendment, that, as far as I know, hasn't yet been brought up in any court, but could prove very interesting if it ever does.

I think the Third Amendment is not really about physically occupying a citizen's home; it is about privacy. Consider that it was written long before the existence of modern electronic monitoring and recording technology. If a government back then wanted to listen in on someone's private conversations, they couldn't do so by planting an electronic bug in someone's home, or tapping their phone lines, or anything like that. They had to put an actual human being into a position to be able to spy on the subject. I think this is what the Third Amendment was meant to prohibit. And by extension, I think that any modern means of electronic eavesdropping are covered by the intent of the Third Amendment.

 

[misterman]

I'm pretty sure that the 3rd Amendment is the most useless ever. The Supreme Court has never bothered to interpret it, because it's never had to. The 3rd Amendment has received peripheral mentions in cases that had no direct relation to the Amendment itself, but that's it.

It's a wonderful immunity that has only been invoked once in a court, and never before the Supreme Court. It'll probably end up being the one right the government never takes away, simply because it's impractical to do so.

Good point. I looked it up, and it was cited in Griswold in discussion of the right to privacy, which of course led to Roe v. Wade. So there's that.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

There is, in my opinion, a rather subtle aspect to the Third Amendment, that, as far as I know, hasn't yet been brought up in any court, but could prove very interesting if it ever does.

I think the Third Amendment is not really about physically occupying a citizen's home; it is about privacy. Consider that it was written long before the existence of modern electronic monitoring and recording technology. If a government back then wanted to listen in on someone's private conversations, they couldn't do so by planting an electronic bug in someone's home, or tapping their phone lines, or anything like that. They had to put an actual human being into a position to be able to spy on the subject. I think this is what the Third Amendment was meant to prohibit. And by extension, I think that any modern means of electronic eavesdropping are covered by the intent of the Third Amendment.

The 3rd was explicitly about quartering troops in private residences. If I'm not mistaken, the architects of the Constitution had experience with the practice, and even if they didn't it's a distinct element in the history of the colonies.

Aside from the one case in US history where the 3rd was directly invoked, it has been mentioned peripherally -- sometimes to argue that the architects believed in protecting privacy, sometimes to argue that there's a difference between wartime rules and peacetime rules.

 

[Karl]

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."

On the surface, this seems like it's granting the states and people quite a bit of power. At the time of debating it, the writers initially had the words 'expressly delegated' written into the constitution. They debated, of course, and took out the word 'expressly' so that the US Congress had some wiggle room. Some even argued the amendment was obviously true and unnecessary. Now today the exact opposite is true.

Today I cannot imagine a law that the US Congress could pass that couldn't be possibly interpreted by the SCOTUS to fall under some combination of clauses in the US: i.e. necessary and proper clause, commerce clause, etc based on interpretation and precedence. If this is the case, then we must ask ourselves what purpose the 10th amendment has.

We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol in the US. The interpretation is changing. Which means the value of the words in the constitution are meaning less today than yesterday. We're on the path to it meaning nothing at all. Supreme power to our national government. With supreme power, imagine what happens if the wrong person is elected into office.

Folks, we need to start asking the simple questions again. Not the complex questions of 'how can we interpret this clause' to push our sides' agenda but rather: is this the path we want to be on?

You'll need to cite some examples of what you consider violations of the 10th. Otherwise all you've got is a rant. For example, SCOTUS allows some state/local infringement of the 2nd, to the consternation of the right wing . Further, SCOTUS allow some local infringement of the 4th via airborne surveillance, but not if said surveillance includes thermal imaging (e.g., seeing 'inside' walls), and certainly not if said surveillance involves federal military assets (this is becoming gray as of very late).

Additionally, voting and redistricting are usually left up to the states, as long as general constitutional protections are not violated.

As to the 3rd, shortly before the revolution the British were quartering troops in colonists homes, evicting the residents. Shouldn't be hard to figure that one out.

 

[Wiseone]

The interpretation is changing...well, it shouldn't be changing. It should remain solid. it is one of the bricks on which our nation came to be and removal of a brick on a structure weakens the structure. Altering the compound of the brick weakens it as well. Just because you find it wrong pits you against the finest minds of the time period in which the document was drafted.

Leave our Constitution alone and intact.

Glad to hear you're on the "No Constitutional Ban of Gay Marriage" side of the argument. Or are we operating with a double standard here?

 

[Centinel]

We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol in the US. The interpretation is changing. Which means the value of the words in the constitution are meaning less today than yesterday. We're on the path to it meaning nothing at all. Supreme power to our national government. With supreme power, imagine what happens if the wrong person is elected into office.

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. They are limited only by its own choice. The people and the states have no powers that are not approved by the federal government, and any one of them can be taken away at the discretion of the federal government.

 

[misterman]

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. They are limited only by its own choice. The people and the states have no powers that are not approved by the federal government, and any one of them can be taken away at the discretion of the federal government.

The people have the power to vote.

 

[Karl]

The federal government has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extend of its own power. [...]

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

However, the states can institute a constitutional convention, and has been noted the people get to vote on a routine basis. That tends to disprove any claim or inference that the federal government has attained totalitarian status.

 

[Centinel]

The people have the power to vote.

You are absolutely correct. And as I mentioned earlier the federal officials that are installed on behalf of the majority are the sole judges of the limits of their.

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

Correct. The judicial branch of the federal government is the sole and final judge of the extend of the federal government's power.

However, the states can institute a constitutional convention, and has been noted the people get to vote on a routine basis. That tends to disprove any claim or inference that the federal government has attained totalitarian status.

True, 3/4 of the states may alter or abolish the constitution. Until then, the federal government's power is supreme.

 

[misterman]

Correction: The Supreme Court has declared itself to the the sole and final judge of the extent of federal power.

Not really.

It simply is the final judge sometimes beacuse disputes end up in the Court and it gets the last word.

It has no say otherwise.