Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The courts, including the United States Supreme Court were never given the enumerated power to alter the US Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution only authorizes a single way for it to be changed, and that way is by amendment as is written in:
SCOTUS does not amend the Constitution, it interprets it. It has to since the Constitution is largely vague in many areas and as we all know, the devil is in the details. SCOTUS provides the details.
Take the 2nd Amendment - it only talks about a militia and does not say squat about personal protection, yet SCOTUS has found that the 2nd Amendment somehow gives people the right to own and carry handguns even though handguns are fairly useless for a militia. We all accept that finding because that is what we all expect SCOTUS to do - interpret the Constitution, i.e., fill in the details.
Of course if all you strict constitutionalists want to undo what SCOTUS has done, we can always do a strict interpretation of the 2nd and take away all your handguns.
Bent, this is what happens when you don't actually read the US Constitution:
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
I see lots of providing in there - let alone other words which mean the same. It even expands greatly to clarify that providing for LOTS of things not written into the constitution are A-OK (in fact, required).
So, the question becomes simple:
1. Did you not read the US Constitution?
2. Did you read it and yet lie to us in the OP?
3. Did you read it and not understand what it says?
I. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Where does the 10th Amendment fall in there and take over?
SCOTUS does not amend the Constitution, it interprets it. It has to since the Constitution is largely vague in many areas and as we all know, the devil is in the details. SCOTUS provides the details.
Take the 2nd Amendment - it only talks about a militia and does not say squat about personal protection, yet SCOTUS has found that the 2nd Amendment somehow gives people the right to own and carry handguns even though handguns are fairly useless for a militia. We all accept that finding because that is what we all expect SCOTUS to do - interpret the Constitution, i.e., fill in the details.
Of course if all you strict constitutionalists want to undo what SCOTUS has done, we can always do a strict interpretation of the 2nd and take away all your handguns.
A well trained people, to maintain the free state from tyrannical rule, the right of all people to keep and carry any weapon they chose to defend liberties, shall not be infringed.
I. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
According to the 18 enumerated powers. Again, they do not have a blank check to write as they will. All of their powers are contingent and constrained to the 18 enumerated powers.
For the love of intelligent discourse, the very quote you give states that with "All legislative powers herein granted..." ie, all powers vested via the 18 enumerated powers.
Where does the 10th Amendment fall in there and take over?
They can only read with very narrow blinders. Their context is achieved based on each small selected subjects of their evaluation. By such, they can then divine intent through word smithing.
Look again at section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court." OK--Supreme Court has the Judicial Power of the United States.
And section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." OK--Judicial Power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, US laws and treaties.
And take a look at Article VI, section 1: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, and laws made under it (and treaties) are the Supreme Law of the land.
Judicial power belongs to the courts--they must decide cases arising under the Constitution and law. If a party to a suit has a constitutional claim, the courts must adjudicate it. Adjudication, in some instances, requires interpretation.
I know, I know... I said I wouldn't say any more on the subject but I cannot let this go unanswered.
The commas that separate the words "arising under this Constitution" do not include the Constitution as a place where judicial Power is extended, rather the Constitution is held as the limiting factor, the contract if you will, that defines the rules under which those "Cases, in Law and Equity" and "the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." are to be obeyed and be limited to.
This statement in the Constitution in no way says or indicates that judicial Power shall extend to the Constitution. To even insinuate such a thing requires a willful intent to bastardize the English language.
I do not see the word "provide" and no references that can be remotely interpreted as "provide"
So, how does the federal government come to provide so much for so many, without authorization?
gee, that's funny, just thinking about the part of the Constitution that we all had to memorize in grade school... "provide for the common defense" is right there, only a few words into it. Pretty much in the same sentence as "We the people..."
YOU do have the ability to choose for yourself. You can defy the law if you so choose, you can move to another country where you think the government won't tax you. All choices have consequences. If you choose to be an American, that choice has consequences. Including the fact that the government, which is a government OF the people, collects taxes to use in ways that have been determined to be for the general welfare. I don't like everything my government does with my tax money. No one does. But I still pay my taxes because I understand that just because I don't like something doesn't mean that the majority of my fellow Americans don't like it. And if they do, then I have to live with it while I try to change it, peacefully and lawfully. Because I like living in a country where I can try to change the laws, versus living in other countries where I may not have that opportunity.
I really don't understand why people keep starting these threads about how unfair it is that they get taxed and some of the money goes to "the general welfare". As if they don't benefit from "the general welfare" themselves.
If they really hate some of the things that tax funds go to, they should just tell themselves that someone else's tax money is paying for what they don't like, and their own tax dollars are paying for what they do like. That would allow those on both sides of the argument to relax and know that their own tax dollars are being spent correctly according to their values.
As an example... let the liberals pay for the arts, education, and those pesky social programs. Then, their own money is freed up for clean air and water, highways & infrastructure (but not Amtrak! make the liberals pay for that!), food inspections, the military, and all the other things that they can use to benefit themselves. I understand that they don't want to pay for them because all the liberals would also benefit, but that is what "the general welfare" actually means.
Why is this so incredibly difficult for people to do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
