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.
No. Medicare and Medicaid only dealt with paying medical bills. They had no control over care.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How was FDR able to sack justices of the SC ?
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.
Who said anything about sacking them?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?