PDA

View Full Version : APP - 10th amendment revisited



Don Quixote
10-16-2009, 01:36 AM
does requiring people to buy health insurance violate the 10th amendment or any other part of the constitution

i think so, but that ship may have already sailed as there are many instances where the constitution has been breached, with the assistance of the supremes, especially the 10th amendment

there are two ways around this

subsidized publicly offered health insurance

a single payer system

oh well

SmarterthanYou
10-16-2009, 08:18 AM
does requiring people to buy health insurance violate the 10th amendment or any other part of the constitution

i think so, but that ship may have already sailed as there are many instances where the constitution has been breached, with the assistance of the supremes, especially the 10th amendment

silly DQ. You should know that the libs and dems in office and out in the public don't give a damn about the constitution anymore.

Don Quixote
10-16-2009, 02:03 PM
silly DQ. You should know that the libs and dems in office and out in the public don't give a damn about the constitution anymore.

you mean like george and dick and torture

SmarterthanYou
10-16-2009, 02:49 PM
you mean like george and dick and torture

yep, you can throw those liberals right in with them also.

Don Quixote
10-16-2009, 03:08 PM
yep, you can throw those liberals right in with them also.

perhaps, unfortunately, i still do :(

Cancel 2018. 3
10-16-2009, 03:22 PM
thats a great question. because according to scotus the federal government cannot require the "states" to pay for federal rules etc....i don't know how this plays out for "individuals" though....

in reality, they could do what they do every other time....and that is hold the purse strings and "allow" the states to choose the purse

Don Quixote
10-16-2009, 07:13 PM
thats a great question. because according to scotus the federal government cannot require the "states" to pay for federal rules etc....i don't know how this plays out for "individuals" though....

in reality, they could do what they do every other time....and that is hold the purse strings and "allow" the states to choose the purse

too true, they will find a way, will it be constitutional - the purse strings bit either is not or should not be

Cancel 2018. 3
10-16-2009, 08:28 PM
too true, they will find a way, will it be constitutional - the purse strings bit either is not or should not be

why not? the states do not have to take federal money....

the states have made themselves reliant on federal money....nothing unconstitutional about that

FUCK THE POLICE
10-16-2009, 09:22 PM
The reliance on federal money does basically have a race to the bottom effect. But if the founders would have disliked that, then it's really a matter of bad design, because the constitution basically allows it.

Damocles
10-16-2009, 09:36 PM
The reliance on federal money does basically have a race to the bottom effect. But if the founders would have disliked that, then it's really a matter of bad design, because the constitution basically allows it.
They designed it so that Senators would be appointed by the States and would act in the interests of the State rather than have to beg for their jobs from constituencies. This was supposed to have the effect to have a check on the exercise of this power. The 17th Amendment put an end to it rather effectively.

Cancel 2018. 3
10-16-2009, 09:53 PM
The reliance on federal money does basically have a race to the bottom effect. But if the founders would have disliked that, then it's really a matter of bad design, because the constitution basically allows it.


They designed it so that Senators would be appointed by the States and would act in the interests of the State rather than have to beg for their jobs from constituencies. This was supposed to have the effect to have a check on the exercise of this power. The 17th Amendment put an end to it rather effectively.

both good points....

states can choose to take the federal money or not. it is as simple as that.

now, if you want to argue whether the feds can tax so much, that they have so much money to "offer" the states "bribe" money, that is a different matter.

Damocles
10-16-2009, 10:09 PM
both good points....

states can choose to take the federal money or not. it is as simple as that.

now, if you want to argue whether the feds can tax so much, that they have so much money to "offer" the states "bribe" money, that is a different matter.
They tax far less than they spend, that's part of a problem that has been ongoing for decades. Bribe with money you have, rather than debt that Watermark isn't good for.

Don Quixote
10-17-2009, 01:05 AM
They designed it so that Senators would be appointed by the States and would act in the interests of the State rather than have to beg for their jobs from constituencies. This was supposed to have the effect to have a check on the exercise of this power. The 17th Amendment put an end to it rather effectively.

do you think that the 17th amendment should be repealed?

Minister of Truth
10-17-2009, 01:12 PM
too true, they will find a way, will it be constitutional - the purse strings bit either is not or should not be

The feds managed to use the purse strings quite effectively in making all of the states go along with the standard of 21 as the drinking age.

Good Luck
10-22-2009, 10:08 PM
do you think that the 17th amendment should be repealed?
Yes. The balance of power was shifted drastically, essentially leaving the states themselves at the mercy of popular democracy. While many would say "so what is wrong with that", those same people seem to forget the design of our government is that of a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A democracy is, by nature, less stable than a republic, and is constantly under the threat of losing individual freedoms in the name of the popular vote. People who promote us as a democracy really need to study up on why the founders chose a constitutional republic instead.

Not only was the idea to create a constitutional republic as opposed to a democracy, the MAIN body of power was supposed to reside with the individual states cooperating with each other through a strictly limited federal government. The 17th Amendment, along with the "Forget what it says and read what we want it to mean" SCOTUS interpretations of the 10th Amendment have screwed that up royally. Today, as a result, we have a bloated, WAY too powerful federal government with the authority to use economic blackmail against the states, leaving them begging with hat in hand to recover at least some of the money paid by their citizens, passing any and every law the Feds decide is a good idea or else lose highway funds, education funds, etc. etc. etc.

It is way fucked up, and the 17th Amendment has played a large role in its devolution to present circumstances.

Don Quixote
10-23-2009, 01:32 AM
Yes. The balance of power was shifted drastically, essentially leaving the states themselves at the mercy of popular democracy. While many would say "so what is wrong with that", those same people seem to forget the design of our government is that of a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A democracy is, by nature, less stable than a republic, and is constantly under the threat of losing individual freedoms in the name of the popular vote. People who promote us as a democracy really need to study up on why the founders chose a constitutional republic instead.

Not only was the idea to create a constitutional republic as opposed to a democracy, the MAIN body of power was supposed to reside with the individual states cooperating with each other through a strictly limited federal government. The 17th Amendment, along with the "Forget what it says and read what we want it to mean" SCOTUS interpretations of the 10th Amendment have screwed that up royally. Today, as a result, we have a bloated, WAY too powerful federal government with the authority to use economic blackmail against the states, leaving them begging with hat in hand to recover at least some of the money paid by their citizens, passing any and every law the Feds decide is a good idea or else lose highway funds, education funds, etc. etc. etc.

It is way fucked up, and the 17th Amendment has played a large role in its devolution to present circumstances.

i think that the 17th amendment should be repealed

while the big money people will just subvert the legislatures, it will be more public and maybe something could be done about

we also need to eliminate unfunded laws at both the state and federal levels

lets shine more light on the big money people

Good Luck
10-23-2009, 05:26 PM
I see it only getting worse. For instance, this health care reform crap. Sure as the south end of a skunk smells bad, there will be federal dollars being distributed to the states. And then the feds will be demanding this, that and the other health-related laws be passed that they could not get past SCOTUS if written at the federal level. Think 55 mph as applied to smoking, healthy eating, etc.

DamnYankee
10-23-2009, 05:31 PM
thats a great question. because according to scotus the federal government cannot require the "states" to pay for federal rules etc....i don't know how this plays out for "individuals" though....

in reality, they could do what they do every other time....and that is hold the purse strings and "allow" the states to choose the purse Have you read Amendment IX?

FUCK THE POLICE
10-24-2009, 12:46 AM
I really can't believe you're trying to say that a body which gives a person in Wyoming 50 times the voting power of a Californian leaves us "to the will of the popular vote". There's absolutely no reason that legislatures electing senators would lead to "more stability" or whatever other nonsense you made up. The only likely effect would be that people would start voting for their state legislature based on what senator they promised to put in office.

DamnYankee
10-24-2009, 09:11 AM
Or maybe the Founders considered the States to be more important that the Fed: Amendment X.

Don Quixote
10-24-2009, 12:26 PM
I really can't believe you're trying to say that a body which gives a person in Wyoming 50 times the voting power of a Californian leaves us "to the will of the popular vote". There's absolutely no reason that legislatures electing senators would lead to "more stability" or whatever other nonsense you made up. The only likely effect would be that people would start voting for their state legislature based on what senator they promised to put in office.

i disagree, it will still be partisan and people will likely vote for the candidate of their party

having said that, my hope would be to remove some of the big money spent on senate races and make the selection more a reflection of the political makeup of the state

FUCK THE POLICE
10-25-2009, 04:03 PM
Or maybe the Founders considered the States to be more important that the Fed: Amendment X.

It doesn't matter what they considered if they didn't put it in the constitution. The federal government clearly has a lot of possible power under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

DamnYankee
10-25-2009, 08:30 PM
It doesn't matter what they considered if they didn't put it in the constitution. The federal government clearly has a lot of possible power under the commerce and general welfare clauses. They did put in in the Constitution, and Amendment X merely stands to underscore this important concept. In the US, power flows from God, to the People, to the States, and finally to the Federal government. Unfortunately for you Liberals, of course, who desire a monarchy or dictatorship.

SmarterthanYou
10-25-2009, 08:44 PM
It doesn't matter what they considered if they didn't put it in the constitution. The federal government clearly has a lot of possible power under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

um, no. the federal government has an extreme amount of power given to them by a weak supreme court which now allows the federal government to tell you whether you can grow roses or dandelions in your front yard. I'm thinking that the framers of the constitution didn't want the feds to have that kind of power.

Good Luck
10-26-2009, 12:01 AM
I really can't believe you're trying to say that a body which gives a person in Wyoming 50 times the voting power of a Californian leaves us "to the will of the popular vote". There's absolutely no reason that legislatures electing senators would lead to "more stability" or whatever other nonsense you made up. The only likely effect would be that people would start voting for their state legislature based on what senator they promised to put in office.
How does a Wyoming Senator have "50 times" the voting power of a CA Senator? Each senator has one half the total voting power in the senate for their state. (Voting power outside the senate makes no difference, since senators cannot vote on bills outside the senate.

The only way you can get that ridiculous claim is by focusing entirely on population, which is EXACTLY what the founders did not want to happen. Equal representation is needed for the states BECAUSE without this balance, the high population states would simply overwhelm and dictate to the less populous states. (Which is precisely what was happening in the 1850s that eventually, along with the industrial vs. slave economy conflict, resulted in the American Civil War.)

The original design was for the state governments to select senators to represent the specific interests of their state. This was designed to be a significantly different job than that of representative of the people. Dedicating the focus of the Senate on states' interest gave the states a measure of power directly in the federal government.

However, when the election of senators was handed over to popular vote, the selection of senators quickly shifted to approximately reflect the division of popular vote in the House - and therefore an approximation of the partisan split in the popularly elected House. This is NOT what was intended. The Senate was supposed to be the speaking house for the states as entities, not another popularly elected representative of the people. By handing over the selection of senators to the popular vote, we end up with A great deal of state power being subverted, and idiots thinking that means Wyoming has more representation power in the Senate than California.

Damocles
10-26-2009, 12:08 AM
It doesn't matter what they considered if they didn't put it in the constitution. The federal government clearly has a lot of possible power under the commerce and general welfare clauses.
General Welfare is not a "clause" it is the reason they got the listed powers of the feds.

It's silly to start talking about WHY you are going to give the federal government certain powers, then list the powers, and pretend that the list means nothing because they said this WHY thing over here... Those who wrote the danged document spoke of this in the Federalist Papers basically stating (paraphrasing here), "The powers are limited, therefore General Welfare cannot be used to take over all means of government."

It is foolish to just lie down and submit because the SCOTUS has ruled that things like MJ and home gardens can be legislated under the Commerce Clause (an actual power of the Federal Government, not just one of the reasons for the powers they were granted). It is far better to work to get some people in there that will limit the government as it was supposed to be limited.

TuTu Monroe
10-26-2009, 09:36 AM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/02.html#1

Minister of Truth
10-27-2009, 09:46 PM
i think that the 17th amendment should be repealed

while the big money people will just subvert the legislatures, it will be more public and maybe something could be done about

we also need to eliminate unfunded laws at both the state and federal levels

lets shine more light on the big money people

I'm not even sure that it would plausable for money to be poured into state legislative races. The money would be spread so damned thin to keep up with the volume of legislative districts, and on top of that, the races are soooo close to home that it would be much harder for people to be bought.

Don Quixote
10-28-2009, 06:20 AM
General Welfare is not a "clause" it is the reason they got the listed powers of the feds.

It's silly to start talking about WHY you are going to give the federal government certain powers, then list the powers, and pretend that the list means nothing because they said this WHY thing over here... Those who wrote the danged document spoke of this in the Federalist Papers basically stating (paraphrasing here), "The powers are limited, therefore General Welfare cannot be used to take over all means of government."

It is foolish to just lie down and submit because the SCOTUS has ruled that things like MJ and home gardens can be legislated under the Commerce Clause (an actual power of the Federal Government, not just one of the reasons for the powers they were granted). It is far better to work to get some people in there that will limit the government as it was supposed to be limited.

when the original articles of confederation failed and the federalists wrote the constitution (check the anti-federalist papers) the fear was that a strong federal government would take too much power away from the states and guess what, so it has

a weak central government failed and a strong federal government has taken over

however, without a strong central government we would still have slavery

the whole anti-slavery and later civil rights movements were illegal until scotus decided that they were legal...except at the state level

but then there is that equal protection under the law provision...

Don Quixote
10-28-2009, 06:22 AM
I'm not even sure that it would plausable for money to be poured into state legislative races. The money would be spread so damned thin to keep up with the volume of legislative districts, and on top of that, the races are soooo close to home that it would be much harder for people to be bought.

perhaps, but look at conn. and how the insurance industry has taken over the state