A valid cite, yes, however one which ignores the real-world political climate that led to it. I do believe in the real world.
Not on point. But I understand your confusion.
And sometimes he even winds up in the majority, usually in cases that don’t involve that concept, though.
You’re stuck with that one, I understand.
Out here in the real world, yes, the 10th has been meaningless since it was written. To paraphrase, “This document doesn’t permit what it doesn’t permit”. Except that there’s not really anything it doesn’t permit.
Keep on fantasizing if you like, along with your fellow tenthers.
THat’s what people who want it to mean nothing like to say about it. Problem is, the logic is awful. Okay, so “It doesn’t permit what it doesn’t permit”. So what doesn’t it permit? For that, the anti-tenthers say, “It permits everything!”
Um, no. THe Supreme court has struck down three laws since the 90s that were not within Congress’ power: Lopez, Morrison, and the individual mandate. Congress asserted the commerce power and the court rejected that rationale in all three cases.
Of course, if the federal government was truly supreme in the sense that you seem to think it is, it wouldn’t have to cite the part of the Constitution that allows it to do things. They could just say, “Grant v. Lee”. Sadly, the war did not abolish rule of law in this country. The federal government is still a limited government of enumerated powers.
I gotta say, I agree with adaher, here on the matter of state sovereignty. While in practice the federal government’s powers have grown over the years - subject ot the whim of the courts - there’s clearly methods for the states to dissolve the federal government and not the reverse. That’s as clear an expression of which side the whip hand is on as anything I’ve seen.
Just because calling a constitutional convention is hard - damn near impossible - the existence of a method for doing so that doesn’t depend on the federal government - that can, in effect, be imposed on the federal government - indicates that the states and the people are considered superior.
Think of it this way: are the cops superior to the public? Sure, when using the powers the public has given to them. But the public can change those powers or even refuse to fund a police force in the first place(although that’s pretty unlikely in all but the smallest towns).
Elvis seems to be arguing that the federal government’s powers, despite being given to it by the states at the original constitutional convention, can be expanded at will by the federal government itself. But that’s not rule of law, that’s like the cops just deciding on their own to enforce laws that don’t exist. Which they often do, but no one would say they have a right to do it.
It’s certainly real, but it isn’t realistic. We aren’t going to dissolve the government and write a new Constitution. That’s a fantasy. The real world is the government we have, and the real way its powers are defined and used. Something else that’s real is the historical fact that *we already tried *a state-supremacy form of national government, and it failed so badly we threw it out entirely in favor of what we’ve got
If it isn’t realistic that the situation will ever arise, then the power to do so remains an idle abstraction, worth discussing only to kill time on a message board. Again, the real-world situation is that the feds are supreme, and I believe in the real world.
Who ratified the Constitution? Who has the power to call a new constitutional convention to change it?
I agree that the federal government won’t be disbanded, but new amendments to limit its power are certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, especially with Republicans currently controlling almost enough state governments to call a convention without Democratic participation. If the GOP can expand their control of state governments in 2014, then they hold the whip hand no matter how much the Democrats dominate the federal government.
Just eight more states, that’s all they need, and then they can pass and ratify whatever controls on the federal government they want.
In any case, since your argument boils down to “the federal government can do what it wants, whatchoo goin’ to do about it?” The same applies to the states. They are becoming more and more recalcitrant, daring to exercise their sovereign rights in areas the Constitution specifically left to them. So, what is the administration going to do about it? Nothing. If the federal government can use extralegal means to expand its power, the states can push back asserting the same means.
They can talk about it all they like, but I remind you once again that the Articles of Confederation are no longer in force. It’s true, you could look it up, right after you look up the 2012 elections.
True. The Constitution is in force, a document which creates a more powerful, but still quite limited, federal government of enumerated powers, leaving most of the powers to the states and the individual.
Worked for Claire McCaskill. And Hagan was running anti-Tillis ads during the primary. When an incumbent is targeting a primary candidate in the other party, it’s pretty much a sure thing that it’s the candidate they don’t want to face.
Or (as is more likely since pretty much everybody thought Tillis would win - the question was whether or not it would require a run-off) she took the opportunity to spend primary dollars hitting her expected future opponent while he couldn’t really hit back. See Obama in the summer of 2012 with Mitt Romney. She may also have been hoping to force that run-off to make him spend even more time and money getting the nom. The money can sometimes be replaced, but the time lost is unrecoverable.
That too. But let’s not kid ourselves. In most races, the Democrat is going to be rooting for the inexperienced extremist flamethrower. Tillis is a seasoned politician, unlikely to self-destruct. Brannon was a Tea party activist and a newbie. He also would have raised less money than Tillis will.
Hoping for? Sure. Why not? But you don’t spend your money on “hope” if you expect to win. You spend it on the most likely outcome and spend it in a way that is most beneficial to you. Attacking Tillis early accomplishes all of those things without any expectation that he won’t (eventually) win the nom. It’s just a smart use of money.
Dems are getting to spend early money attacking Republicans, ironically, Republicans are having to spend early money to do the same thing. It’s utterly delicious.
