# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/41 "2015-02-03T22:13:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There is some: > > The fact that the federal government cannot legally do this is something that a surprising number of really educated people don’t know. But it can. It just needs to tie state compliance to federal funding. Worked for the 55 mph speed limit. > [@](#): > > In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (e.g. by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. ---
**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, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/42 "2015-02-03T23:29:27Z")
But even that was curtailed a bit in the Medicaid expansion decision. It has to be plausible for the state to decline the money. The Medicaid terms were deemed extortionate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/43 "2015-02-04T00:02:17Z")
Hmm, if we are talking unconstitutional _laws_ passed, perhaps the 2nd. Yep. SCOTUS ruled that requiring a license for a machinegun was not “a infringement”. Sure, great, no problemo. But then the Supremes ruled in 2008 that _de facto_ banning handguns \*was \*a infringement . Between those two are a whole host of other “infringements”, some of which have been kicked out by Lower Courts, and others who have not yet been ruled on. Many of those are of doubtful Constitutionality. Now sure, they added " _nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_ Further rulings have been interesting. ---
**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 4, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/44 "2015-02-04T01:59:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Hmm, if we are talking unconstitutional _laws_ passed, perhaps the 2nd. Yep. SCOTUS ruled that requiring a license for a machinegun was not “a infringement”. Sure, great, no problemo. But then the Supremes ruled in 2008 that _de facto_ banning handguns \*was \*a infringement Are you referring to the 1934 National Firearms Act? Because in legal theory that simply taxes machine guns, and you’re required to have a tax stamp, not a license. Of course that hasn’t stopped the B.A.T.F.E from presuming that possessing such a firearm is _de facto_ illegal unless you have adequate proof you payed- more or less the position His Majesty’s duty agents took enforcing the Stamp Act in the American colonies. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/45 "2015-02-10T20:38:56Z")
Anyone been litigating their Third Amendment rights recently? ---
**Author:** ![Flywheel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Flywheel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flywheel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443/46 "2015-02-10T20:40:07Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Anyone been litigating their Third Amendment rights recently? Is [1982](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) recent enough? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-part-of-the-u-s-constitution-has-been-violated-the-most/711443.md?page=2)