Which part of the U.S. Constitution has been violated the most?

[BrainGlutton]

@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.

[adaher]

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.

[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 .

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.

[Lumpy]

@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.

[Mk_VII]

Anyone been litigating their Third Amendment rights recently?

[Flywheel]

@Mk_VII

Anyone been litigating their Third Amendment rights recently?

Is 1982 recent enough?