# Which part of the U.S. Constitution has been violated the most? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443 "2015-01-31T17:28:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/21 "2015-02-01T02:11:54Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The U.S. violates terms of treaties fairly often, and thus we violate that part of the Constitution that says that treaties are part of the “Supreme Law of the Land.” This was what I was going to say. At least with everything else that has been mentioned, there is and has been serious discussion about it. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone who considers that our international treaties have to be held up to the same level of importance as the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, even though it’s clearly stated in the Constitution that treaties are at that same level. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/22 "2015-02-01T02:35:23Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > This was what I was going to say. At least with everything else that has been mentioned, there is and has been serious discussion about it. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone who considers that our international treaties have to be held up to the same level of importance as the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, even though it’s clearly stated in the Constitution that treaties are at that same level. I heard it said that what that provision in the Constitution means is that a ratified treaty automatically grants the federal government the authority to meet the terms of the treaty, back when the enumerated powers/10th Amendment deal was taken seriously. IOW, it would not be necessary to amend the Constitution every time a treaty was signed. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/23 "2015-02-01T02:47:36Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Tenth Amendment, hand’s down. If you mean the Constitution taken literally, there is a good case for the tenth. There is also a good case for the $20 clause in the seventh amendment. [Today, any disputes that involve amounts less than $75000 will not be handled in a federal court.](http://www.government-and-constitution.org/bill-of-rights/7th-amendment.htm) But if the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means – and that’s more realistic – than I vote for the general refusal of deep South school districts to follow Brown vs. Board of Education. It was decided in 1954, but there were lots of dual school districts until 1970. Hundreds of districts defied the Supreme Court, refusing to unify their school systems until sued into submission, one by one. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/24 "2015-02-01T04:17:56Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > If you mean the Constitution taken literally, there is a good case for the tenth. It should be a no-brainer. Anything the (federal) constitution doesn’t specifically address should be left to the states: The federal constitution doesn’t talk about education, hence any and all laws related to education should be left to the states. The federal constitution doesn’t talk about healthcare, hence any and all laws related to healthcare should be left to the states. The federal constitution doesn’t talk about labor, hence any and all laws related to labor should be left to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/25 "2015-02-01T04:45:58Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > It should be a no-brainer. Anything the (federal) constitution doesn’t specifically address should be left to the states . . . Except for interstate issues. Thus, pollution regulation is appropriate to the Federal Government, because if you dump ink in the Mississippi in Indiana, you affect Missouri. Same for regulation of radio frequencies, since radio transmissions don’t stop at state lines. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/26 "2015-02-01T04:53:16Z")
And then there’s the fact that Congress is not only empowered, but actually obligated, to legislate “for the common welfare”. Just what does that mean? I don’t know, but it’s got to mean something. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/27 "2015-02-01T05:20:30Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > The federal constitution doesn’t talk about labor, hence any and all laws related to labor should be left to the states. If you employ people other than in interstate commerce, AFAIK federal labor laws do not apply. The fact that modern technology means 99.99% of commerce is interstate doesn’t make it a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to regulate it. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/28 "2015-02-01T08:44:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Nitpick: all the 18th Amendment did was give the Federal government an explicit authority over the regulation of alcoholic beverages. This is not true, at least not if you take the text of the Amendment seriously. It does not merely give power to Congress to regulate alcoholic beverages; it prohibits alcoholic beverages directly (“is hereby prohibited”). True, the Amendment explicitly requires statutory action, but that action is to enforce the ban on alcohol; the ban itself comes directly from the Constitution as amended. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/29 "2015-02-01T09:03:10Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > This is not true, at least not if you take the text of the Amendment seriously. It does not merely give power to Congress to regulate alcoholic beverages; it prohibits alcoholic beverages directly (“is hereby prohibited”). True, the Amendment explicitly requires statutory action, but that action is to enforce the ban on alcohol; the ban itself comes directly from the Constitution as amended. But only “manufacture, sale, or transportation”, possessing or consuming alcohol are not mentioned by the Amendment itself. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/30 "2015-02-01T10:50:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And then there’s the fact that Congress is not only empowered, but actually obligated, to legislate “for the common welfare”. Just what does that mean? I don’t know, but it’s got to mean something. No, the general welfare clause limits Congress’s use of taxes “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” To quote Jefferson, “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] 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.” Madison likewise found it a ridiculous interpretation that the general welfare clause granted Congress the power to do anything it liked, so long as they could argue it was for the general welfare. It simply limited what they could use taxes for. It granted no legislative power. Others disagree, of course. And that clause, along with the commerce clause, is used to do whatever the @#$% they want. Interesting, that two clauses intended to restrict Congress were interpreted to produce such expansive power and to trash the tenth (IMO). ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/31 "2015-02-01T11:47:47Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > But only “manufacture, sale, or transportation”, possessing or consuming alcohol are not mentioned by the Amendment itself. The statutes adopted by Congress did not ban consumption of alcohol either. As for possession, the statutes did include provisions on that, but they made it clear that “it shall not be unlawful to possess liquors in one’s private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only an such liquor need not be reported, provided such liquors are for use only for the personal consumption of the owner thereof and his family residing in such dwelling and of his bona fide guests when entertained by him therein” (section 33 of the National Prohibition Act), so the provisions on possession were ancillary to the purpose of banning the manufacture and distribution of alcohol, whereas the legislature apparently did not take offence at the mere possession for personal consumption as such. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/32 "2015-02-01T12:54:26Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > It should be a no-brainer. Anything the (federal) constitution doesn’t specifically address should be left to the states: In a literal interpretation of the US Constitution, yes. It is similarly a no-brainer that paper money should be abolished, since the Constitution only authorizes coinage. Absurdly heavy in your pocket? Too bad. It is, as I mentioned before, a similar no-brainer that if you have a $20 dispute with the federal government – say, over a parking ticket gotten on a military base – you have a 7th amendment right to a jury trial. It is a similar no-brainer that kids have a right to bring bazookas into the US Capital building, since the constitution doesn’t mention anything about age or type of weapon when saying that the right to bear cannot be infringed. The US Constitution is outdated and poorly written. But it is too hard to amend, so we are stuck with it. The only way out is to have modernizing Supreme Court interpretations. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/33 "2015-02-01T13:33:02Z")
Even though the general welfare and commerce clauses have been interpreted to greatly expand Congress’ power, words mean things and both still impose some limits, limits which Congress still resents. They apparently think they should be able to literally pass any law they want. General welfare means the country as a whole, not a specific interest group. Interstate commerce is just that, interstate. Intrastate commerce is free from regulation, provided it doesn’t have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and non-commerce is beyond the reach of Congress. As for what part is violated the most? Judging by the number of laws struck down, especially in recent years, I’d have to say the 1st amendment. The “takings” clause also gets a lot of action in the courts, with governments at all levels thinking they can just seize whatever they want whenever they want, sometimes with compensation, sometimes not. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/34 "2015-02-01T14:58:31Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > The statutes adopted by Congress did not ban consumption of alcohol either. As for possession, the statutes did include provisions on that, but they made it clear that “it shall not be unlawful to possess liquors in one’s private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only an such liquor need not be reported, provided such liquors are for use only for the personal consumption of the owner thereof and his family residing in such dwelling and of his bona fide guests when entertained by him therein” (section 33 of the National Prohibition Act), so the provisions on possession were ancillary to the purpose of banning the manufacture and distribution of alcohol, whereas the legislature apparently did not take offence at the mere possession for personal consumption as such. If I may add one thing: If the whole effect of the 18th Amendment had been merely to empower Congress to ban alcohol, rather than to actually ban it by virtue of the Constitution itself, then it would not have been necessary to amend the Constitution yet again to abolish prohibition - it would have sufficed to simply repeal the Act of Congress adopted on the basis of the 18th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/35 "2015-02-01T17:02:28Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > If you mean the Constitution taken literally, there is a good case for the tenth. > > There is also a good case for the $20 clause in the seventh amendment. [Today, any disputes that involve amounts less than $75000 will not be handled in a federal court.](http://www.government-and-constitution.org/bill-of-rights/7th-amendment.htm) Your link does say that. It is not correct, however. The $75,000 cut-off is for state court cases brought into federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts still hear cases where less than $75,000 is in play. And, there is a jury if the parties want one. The seventh amendment is a good example, however. Thousands of cases are dismissed by judges without a jury considering factual disputes on motions for summary judgment. Although such motions are supposed to be granted on in cases where facts are beyond dispute, in practice it doesn’t always work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/36 "2015-02-02T00:29:11Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > If I may add one thing: If the whole effect of the 18th Amendment had been merely to empower Congress to ban alcohol, rather than to actually ban it by virtue of the Constitution itself, then it would not have been necessary to amend the Constitution yet again to abolish prohibition - it would have sufficed to simply repeal the Act of Congress adopted on the basis of the 18th Amendment. The second clause is certainly confusing. Why should Congress need to have “concurrent power” (what does that even mean?) to enforce the amendment? Does that mean that Congress could have theoretically passed a “nullifying law” relying on their ability to enforce the law implying that they don’t absolutely have to if they don’t want to? It would have been fascinating to have seen that debate play out! (Just as it is fascinating, today, to see the immigration debate play out. Must every administration spend every penny it possesses to prosecute every crime that is reported, no matter what, always? Or can presidents and governors prioritize when there are insufficient resources? Is plea-bargaining a violation of a president’s/ governor’s/ prosecutor’s oath of office? An absolutely strict interpretation would suggest yes, it is!) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/37 "2015-02-03T18:51:06Z")
Concurrent, running together, meaning both the feds and the states had jurisdiction to enforce the 18th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/38 "2015-02-03T19:08:17Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Tenth Amendment, hand’s down. Well, for some reason, [there ain’t much case law on that one, and what there is don’t say much.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/39 "2015-02-03T21:04:29Z")
There is some: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes The fact that the federal government cannot legally do this is something that a surprising number of really educated people don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/40 "2015-02-03T21:19:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Concurrent, running together, meaning both the feds and the states had jurisdiction to enforce the 18th Amendment. Ah! Thank you! That makes sense. I was trying to figure some interpretation involving the Feds and the Constitution itself sharing the basis for the authority. Compare, if you will, the more direct language of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, especially its second article. > [@](#): > > Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (I wonder if the courts would ever have had to hear cases debating what “appropriate” meant!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443.md?page=3)