View Single Post
Old 08-31-2019, 11:43 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,382
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
I'm not talking about "direct consent", I'm talking about the federal government restraining its operations (or being restrained) to just the specific powers granted to it by the Constitution. If one considers the 10th Amendment a part of the Constitution and a guide for the application of constitutional powers, what's the dispute?

Do you really consider it a contested premise that what isn't conferred to the feds by the Constitution is retained by the people or the states? I admit, the principle seems dead and buried as far as the people's rights go, in the minds of government agents and the citizens, (given your comments here), hence my comment about the degraded sense of liberty today. That the principle is being ignored for rights doesn't mean I'm wrong in principle, or wrong to argue for the principle . . .

I find it interesting that it remains a principle applied to benefit the states, as seem in the enforcement of the anti-commandeering doctrine, in a case so recent it hasn't been assigned a page number yet:

"The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority."

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)

Also conspicuously absent is any power granted to define unalienable rights.
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I almost completely agree with Abatis. I don't understand your reference to "gold fringes" or "admirality law", but in my opinion and my interpretation of the Supreme Court and founding father's opinions, the federal government only has the powers enumerated under the constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution have the power to grant rights. The Constitution is an instrument of the states (and the people by extension) that gives the federal government the power to restrict certain rights, and prevents the state governments from restricting certain rights.

It's a small but important distinction.

I may have rushed to judgement about where this was headed.

I think I understand the position that at it's core, the constitution is meant to protect "unalienable rights". But what's heard more often than not is that we live in a 'nation of laws' and under 'rule of law'. Whether state or federal, these laws often serve to put restrictions on "unalienable rights". Do either of you find these two concepts in opposition? If not, why not? If so, can they be reconciled, or have we mostly moved well past the founding fathers principles of individualist rights towards those of social justice, i.e. "a more just society"?
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.