• 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!

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X

Joebruno

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
15
Reaction score
3
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Amendment 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.

Generally, the courts call anything left to the states as "Police powers".
Prior to Obamacare, the states had control of most medical care, but Obama changed all that.

Law enforcement is generally left to the states unless a Federal law is involved or the matter involves interstate commerce, at which time the FBI takes over.
Because banks in the USA have their deposits insured by the FDIC, a Federal agency, bank robbery is in the FBI's jurisdiction.

In some areas where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government has some control because the state accepts Federal funds.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,295
Reaction score
37,293
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Amendment 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.

Generally, the courts call anything left to the states as "Police powers".
Prior to Obamacare, the states had control of most medical care, but Obama changed all that.

Law enforcement is generally left to the states unless a Federal law is involved or the matter involves interstate commerce, at which time the FBI takes over.
Because banks in the USA have their deposits insured by the FDIC, a Federal agency, bank robbery is in the FBI's jurisdiction.

In some areas where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government has some control because the state accepts Federal funds.
Medicare an Medicaid already put that federal foot in the door, PPACA just closed the sale. The new "rule" seems to be that if something (anything?) is deemed important then congress can make it into a (new?) federal power - so long as it can be argued to have some connection to taxation, commerce and/or promoting the general welfare.
 

Joebruno

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
15
Reaction score
3
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Medicare an Medicaid already put that federal foot in the door, PPACA just closed the sale. The new "rule" seems to be that if something (anything?) is deemed important then congress can make it into a (new?) federal power - so long as it can be argued to have some connection to taxation, commerce and/or promoting the general welfare.
No. Medicare and Medicaid only dealt with paying medical bills. They had no control over care.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,295
Reaction score
37,293
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No. Medicare and Medicaid only dealt with paying medical bills. They had no control over care.
Are you kidding me? How is it not control over care for the government to set a "take it or leave it" price? It's also not as if one has a choice whether or not to fund Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, that does not even address the EMTALA mandate.
 

lemmiwinx

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
3,618
Reaction score
1,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Constitution has always been about things the government can't do to you just because they want to. Shame it's not taught in school any more.
 

clapee

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
167
Reaction score
28
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Amendment 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.

Generally, the courts call anything left to the states as "Police powers".
Prior to Obamacare, the states had control of most medical care, but Obama changed all that.

Law enforcement is generally left to the states unless a Federal law is involved or the matter involves interstate commerce, at which time the FBI takes over.
Because banks in the USA have their deposits insured by the FDIC, a Federal agency, bank robbery is in the FBI's jurisdiction.

In some areas where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government has some control because the state accepts Federal funds.
I remember my constitutional law professor told us that the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution are rules of interpretation, rather than substantive law.

I think that’s probably correct. Even so, personally, I do not believe the Constitution can justify drug laws, or really anything similar
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Amendment 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.

Generally, the courts call anything left to the states as "Police powers".
Prior to Obamacare, the states had control of most medical care, but Obama changed all that.

Law enforcement is generally left to the states unless a Federal law is involved or the matter involves interstate commerce, at which time the FBI takes over.
Because banks in the USA have their deposits insured by the FDIC, a Federal agency, bank robbery is in the FBI's jurisdiction.

In some areas where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government has some control because the state accepts Federal funds.
And more an more states are legalizing recreational use of marijuana; what's your point? And though I don't like nor use Obama care, what he did was open the door that needed to be busted down. We're being ripped off by the health care industry and it's time they got the message through statute and and true competition. So again, what's your point?
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
31,345
Reaction score
2,656
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Amendment 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.

Generally, the courts call anything left to the states as "Police powers".
Prior to Obamacare, the states had control of most medical care, but Obama changed all that.

Law enforcement is generally left to the states unless a Federal law is involved or the matter involves interstate commerce, at which time the FBI takes over.
Because banks in the USA have their deposits insured by the FDIC, a Federal agency, bank robbery is in the FBI's jurisdiction.

In some areas where the states have exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government has some control because the state accepts Federal funds.

What's your point ?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,897
Reaction score
74,748
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In the early days of the FDR administration, the Supreme court used the tenth amendment to strike down many of the clearly unconstitutional New Deal laws. After the 36 election and the court packing threat, the supreme court jettisoned 140 years of precedent and started basically doing whatever FDR wanted. That essentially killed the tenth amendment as a check on federal excess. And even some of the most conservative justices-including the late Justice Scalia, was loathe to actually apply the tenth to crappy precedent since he was extremely concerned that a proper application of the tenth amendment to existing programs could "cause massive social upheaval to social institutions that the public has come to rely upon" (Steven Calabresi-NWU Law professor-Howard Taft Lecture on Constitutional law at the University of Cincinnati Law School, 2012: Professor Calabresi was a founder of the federalist society and a former law clerk for Scalia)
 

Individual

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
4,433
Reaction score
825
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Constitution has always been about things the government can't do to you just because they want to. Shame it's not taught in school any more.
It probably is taught in school, but much different than it used to be.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
8,181
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In the early days of the FDR administration, the Supreme court used the tenth amendment to strike down many of the clearly unconstitutional New Deal laws. After the 36 election and the court packing threat, the supreme court jettisoned 140 years of precedent and started basically doing whatever FDR wanted. That essentially killed the tenth amendment as a check on federal excess. And even some of the most conservative justices-including the late Justice Scalia, was loathe to actually apply the tenth to crappy precedent since he was extremely concerned that a proper application of the tenth amendment to existing programs could "cause massive social upheaval to social institutions that the public has come to rely upon" (Steven Calabresi-NWU Law professor-Howard Taft Lecture on Constitutional law at the University of Cincinnati Law School, 2012: Professor Calabresi was a founder of the federalist society and a former law clerk for Scalia)
Not entirely correct. You were doing fine until you got to the "court packing threat" (which did happen). FDR ended up getting his way with the Supreme Court after 1936 because he was able to replace all nine justices before his death. The following are the Supreme Court justices appointed by FDR, and the year in which he appointed them:

  • Hugo Black, 1937;
  • Stanley Reed, 1938;
  • Felix Frankfurter, 1939;
  • William Douglas, 1939;
  • Frank Murphy, 1940;
  • James Byrnes, 1941;
  • Harlan Stone, 1941;
  • Robert Jackson, 1941; and
  • Wiley Rutledge, 1943.

When you replace all nine Supreme Court justices you have effectively stacked the court in your favor. Just one of the many crimes by FDR that we are still paying for to this day.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
31,345
Reaction score
2,656
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not entirely correct. You were doing fine until you got to the "court packing threat" (which did happen). FDR ended up getting his way with the Supreme Court after 1936 because he was able to replace all nine justices before his death. The following are the Supreme Court justices appointed by FDR, and the year in which he appointed them:

  • Hugo Black, 1937;
  • Stanley Reed, 1938;
  • Felix Frankfurter, 1939;
  • William Douglas, 1939;
  • Frank Murphy, 1940;
  • James Byrnes, 1941;
  • Harlan Stone, 1941;
  • Robert Jackson, 1941; and
  • Wiley Rutledge, 1943.

When you replace all nine Supreme Court justices you have effectively stacked the court in your favor. Just one of the many crimes by FDR that we are still paying for to this day.
How was FDR able to sack justices of the SC ?
 

Terryj

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
540
Reaction score
220
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If one looks at Article 1 of the Constitution this spells out the operation and powers of the Federal Government. Sections 1 through 7 spells out how Congress shall operate, Sections 8 through 10 spells out the powers Congress has. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People. The people and the States can give congress powers not spelled out in the Constitution, this process is done by amendments.

To look at the abuses of Congress, 1) healthcare, congress has not been given the power to regulate healthcare, nowhere is this addressed in the Constitution and nowhere has the people given this power to the Federal Government.
2) gun control, again congress has never been given the power to address this.

These are just two examples of the abuse of congress.

Congress claim to have the authority under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, however, this is a bastardized version of the original intent.

In 1792 Madison was debating the Cod Fisheries Bill, and what he said has unfortunately come to pass.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,897
Reaction score
74,748
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not entirely correct. You were doing fine until you got to the "court packing threat" (which did happen). FDR ended up getting his way with the Supreme Court after 1936 because he was able to replace all nine justices before his death. The following are the Supreme Court justices appointed by FDR, and the year in which he appointed them:

  • Hugo Black, 1937;
  • Stanley Reed, 1938;
  • Felix Frankfurter, 1939;
  • William Douglas, 1939;
  • Frank Murphy, 1940;
  • James Byrnes, 1941;
  • Harlan Stone, 1941;
  • Robert Jackson, 1941; and
  • Wiley Rutledge, 1943.

When you replace all nine Supreme Court justices you have effectively stacked the court in your favor. Just one of the many crimes by FDR that we are still paying for to this day.
you are correct but I am not wrong because Charles Evan Hughes and others flip flopped after the 36 election and before FDR was able to put a bunch of judges in. When DDE finally took the Oval office away from the Dems, almost every federal judge in the country was a democrat and thus all the unconstitutional crap FDR had instigated, was protected by his minions on the courts
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,897
Reaction score
74,748
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Who said anything about sacking them?
maybe he assumed SC justices are immortal and the only way to replace them is by sacking them?
 

Phys251

1/20/2021: The healing begins
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
33,967
Reaction score
17,637
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Constitution has always been about things the government can't do to you just because they want to.
That was somewhat accurate until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Shame it's not taught in school any more.
Back when kids walked uphill both ways in the snow? :lol:
 

Terryj

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
540
Reaction score
220
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not entirely correct. You were doing fine until you got to the "court packing threat" (which did happen). FDR ended up getting his way with the Supreme Court after 1936 because he was able to replace all nine justices before his death. The following are the Supreme Court justices appointed by FDR, and the year in which he appointed them:

  • Hugo Black, 1937;
  • Stanley Reed, 1938;
  • Felix Frankfurter, 1939;
  • William Douglas, 1939;
  • Frank Murphy, 1940;
  • James Byrnes, 1941;
  • Harlan Stone, 1941;
  • Robert Jackson, 1941; and
  • Wiley Rutledge, 1943.

When you replace all nine Supreme Court justices you have effectively stacked the court in your favor. Just one of the many crimes by FDR that we are still paying for to this day.
Correct, under FDR, the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

If one looks at the meaning of "welfare" as the Founders of the Constitution understood it is completely different than the meaning of the word in today's usage:

Welfare: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

Welfare: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

Huge difference between the two, those who seek to understand what the Constitution means needs to understand the meaning of the words as applied in its creation.
 
Last edited:

Jason Warfield

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
766
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Correct, under FDR, the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

If one looks at the meaning of "welfare" as the Founders of the Constitution understood it is completely different than the meaning of the word in today's usage:

Welfare: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

Welfare: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

Huge difference between the two, those who seek to understand what the Constitution means needs to understand the meaning of the words as applied in its creation.
Problem with your post...you are limiting the definition to a dictionary...you are not, in fact, describing it as the Founders and Framers would...that is in their journals, letters and matters of business inside and outside of government service, whatever that may be. And they all had a differing view on what government welfare was or should be.

In other words, if you wish to take the words of the Founders and Framers on what welfare means, you first have to toss out the dictionary meanings. Next, you have to go to their writings (which can be found in multiple libraries and historical foundations throughout the country)...upon which you will find that there is no consensus on what government welfare means among them.

And historically speaking, if you wish to draw comparisons between the time they were alive and now...I've got some good news and bad news for you. The good news is that they didn't pass very many, what you would consider as wasteful welfare today, policies and spending bills. The bad news is...of the ones that did pass as spending and/or policies...they basically fit the definition of what you consider as wasteful welfare today. Don't take my word for it, do what historians do: research it. Although, you may not like what you find.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
8,181
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If one looks at Article 1 of the Constitution this spells out the operation and powers of the Federal Government. Sections 1 through 7 spells out how Congress shall operate, Sections 8 through 10 spells out the powers Congress has. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People. The people and the States can give congress powers not spelled out in the Constitution, this process is done by amendments.

To look at the abuses of Congress, 1) healthcare, congress has not been given the power to regulate healthcare, nowhere is this addressed in the Constitution and nowhere has the people given this power to the Federal Government.
2) gun control, again congress has never been given the power to address this.

These are just two examples of the abuse of congress.

Congress claim to have the authority under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, however, this is a bastardized version of the original intent.

In 1792 Madison was debating the Cod Fisheries Bill, and what he said has unfortunately come to pass.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
While Congress did claim to have authority under this imaginary General Welfare Clause, the Supreme Court shot it down in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) when they were tossing 11 of FDR's 15 illegal New Deal programs. This is what they had to say on the subject:
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
As you can see, the Supreme Court held Madison's (and Jefferson's) point of view on the subject. The General Welfare is the purpose for which Congress may tax, it is not a power unto itself.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
8,181
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Correct, under FDR, the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

If one looks at the meaning of "welfare" as the Founders of the Constitution understood it is completely different than the meaning of the word in today's usage:

Welfare: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

Welfare: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.

Huge difference between the two, those who seek to understand what the Constitution means needs to understand the meaning of the words as applied in its creation.
Actually, it was Congress that told FDR "no" when he sought to pack the court after having the overwhelming majority of his New Deal programs tossed by the Supreme Court. FDR then wanted to implement a mandatory retirement age of 72 on the Supreme Court. Congress said no to that as well. That is when the Supreme Court justices began dropping off. In just 6 years, after Congress tells FDR "no" to his court packing and retirement schemes, all 9 justices will have managed to conveniently die and be replaced by just one President.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,897
Reaction score
74,748
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
While Congress did claim to have authority under this imaginary General Welfare Clause, the Supreme Court shot it down in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) when they were tossing 11 of FDR's 15 illegal New Deal programs. This is what they had to say on the subject:


As you can see, the Supreme Court held Madison's (and Jefferson's) point of view on the subject. The General Welfare is the purpose for which Congress may tax, it is not a power unto itself.
Indeed, if the concept of the welfare clause was that which the FDR minions claimed, then why would the founders have put all those things in Article One, Section 8?
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
8,181
Reaction score
2,931
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Indeed, if the concept of the welfare clause was that which the FDR minions claimed, then why would the founders have put all those things in Article One, Section 8?
That was precisely the argument Thomas Jefferson gave in 1791 in his opinion of the first National Bank of the United States.
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
It should be noted that Jefferson lost that argument in 1791 because the first National Bank of the United States was created.
 
Top Bottom