John Mace, this is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that the 10th is outdated. We have a system in place that, for no good reason, would throw question on a fairly large number of the most successful pieces of legislature in US history for no good reason (seriously, give me a good argument as to why the states should have so much freedom from the federal government). And meanwhile, simply because we want the individual states to have more rights/less control from the government, we are supposed to act like we’re 50 individual countries (or, at the very least, 10-20) when we very, very clearly are not. It’s not just that the 10th is open to severe interpretation. It’s also that it doesn’t even make any sense on paper either!
The ultimate hypocrisy, of course, comes when tenthers like Perry and Bachmann demand an amendment to the constitution on issues that SCOTUS has gone against them on, like gay marriage and abortion.
Many states are larger or just as large as your typical European country. Is there any evidence that people are better off in the larger European countries (Germany, France, UK, Italy) than they are in the smallest ones (Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.).
OK, Ireland, but they don’t count.
That’s not hypocrisy. They respect the tenth amendment (or at least claim to) but are simply adding one enumerated power to the federal government. It’s more hypocritical when they claim to champion individual liberty, but then want to restrict that liberty for no compelling reason other than their own personal prejudices and their mistaken beliefs about the nature of homosexuality.
I know no one these days actually acknowledge this, but yes, this is the entire purpose of the constitution. It’s designed specifically as a limit on federal power - to allow the federal government to do a list of only a very specific few things. Many of the people debating and writing the constitution didn’t even want it to list the restrictions of what it couldn’t do, like the bill of rights. They felt it was dangerous - that if the federal government otherwise followed the constitution, only doing its specific enumerated powers, it wouldn’t do the things that were enumerated as prohibited, hence a bill of rights would be unnecesary To have a specific list of no-nos would begin to suggest that the federal government could do what it wanted as long as it didn’t violate those.
And it turns out they were correct.
No. This argument essentially says that the founders wrote the constitution and then invalidated it purposefully with two words. That they’d put all these limits on the federal government - which was the main purpose of the constitution - and then undo all those efforts by saying “congress can do whatever it wants so long as it declares it’s for the general welfare”
No - general welfare in this case is a description of how what limited federal power there is has to be used. The federal government can impose tariffs on incoming goods, but it must use those funds for the general welfare - say, raising an army or running the post office - rather than just giving cash out to specific interests, say, south carolina tobacco farmers.
That is in fact exactly what it is. Those who opposed the bill of rights on the ground that it would be used to justify an entirely wrong view of the constitution lobbied to have that amendment put in there to specifically remind us that the federal government is enumerated only to those specific powers, and that the rest is up to lower levels of government. What does your interpretation of the tenth amendment do, exactly, if not that?
What you’re really saying with this thread is that you hate people who actually believe the constitution should be relevant in our current politics.
What baffles and angers me is that people still pretend we’re running the government as the constitution intended, and then freak out about any particular policy or program and then say “woah woah no way, THIS is unconstitutional”. They’re completely oblivious to how ridiculous it is.
Almost everything the federal goverment does is unconstitutional. We abandoned following the constitution, at the very least, several decades ago. You could reject the vast majority of laws on a constitutional basis. To suddenly get up in arms over one as a sudden violation of the constitution is absurd to me. You can’t ignore it 99% of the time and then freak out about it the 1% you want to justify something you don’t like as violating the constitution, what hypocritical bullshit. We should either follow the constitution (not really possible without dismantling society at this point) or just ignore it at this point - going back and forth in such a transparent and ridiculous way is just silly.
You’re crazy. It’s that kind of thinking that has dug us into the hole we are in today. The Founding Fathers had absolutely no intention of the general welfare clause meaning “write welfare checks” or anything similar.
And there were founders who thought otherwise too. Clumping all founders and all the people who voted to ratify the Constitution in one group is often problematic. A necessary problem, but a problem nonetheless.
Remember, one of the huge reasons we have a Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation was such a failure. They said so when they called for the Constitutional Convention is that they wanted a Congress: "“to legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual legislation.”
Oh please. Putting aside the obvious problem that you think all the founders agreed (Ask Hamilton and Madison about the national bank some time), concluding that sometime in the early 20th century we just abandoned the Constitution is simplistic crap, meant to appease people too worried about the complexities of Constitutional interpretation to have actual debates.
But there is certainly a modicum of truth in there. Some founders would be surprised to see how expansive the federal government has become and how little the States are involved. They’d also be shocked by the fact it took a fucking Civil War to show their interpretation wasn’t right.
Anyone in power will use any interpretation to suit their needs. Tenthers stretch that commonly understood concept though, by trying to prevent anyone else from exercising their power to interpret laws by forcing people to think of the 10th Amendment in one way only
Count me in as a lite tenther. I agree that any powers not reserved for the federal government are best left to the states. But I also agree with a very liberal and modern day understanding and reading of the constitution.
One simple question: what do you (Budget Player Cadet) think the 10th amendment means?
Follow up question: is there anything at all that the federal government does or will ever want to do that cannot fit under “general welfare”? And if so, why does the 10th amendment exist?
The “very liberal” interpretation of the Constitution claims that the “general welfare” is one of the powers of Congress. Then maybe you can answer the question I asked: is there anything at all that the federal government does or will ever want to do that cannot fit under “general welfare”? And if there isn’t, why does the 10th amendment exist?
Already answered this earlier, more or less as such:
I don’t care what the 10th amendment was “supposed” to mean according to the founders. I’d consider it incredibly prudent of the government to do away with it entirely because it is one of the most ridiculously unproductive constitutional amendments ever. It’s like having a constitutional amendment banning any programs over a city level: clearly that’s stupid, no? How is limiting it to a state level, and as such turning one country into 50 any better? I think that the more we can get away with through the welfare and commerce clauses, the better, because Federalism is not a very functional system in this modern world, and the USA doesn’t lend itself particularly well to it either.
And it categorically is. It’s there, in the text. Now we can argue what the “general welfare” means, but providing for the “general welfare” of the United States is without a doubt one of the power of Congress.
No it isn’t. Maintaining general welfare is a duty of congress, and that is why it is “there, in the text”. It is the goal for which it has the taxation power, but it is not one of the powers.
It is simple logic. “Pay the Debts” - is that a “power” of Congress or is it Congress’s duty?
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”