Who thinks the 10 Amendment has been totally ignored?
 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Seems to me we've strayed a LONG way from this one. If anything, this one should be the stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade and plenty of others. I would love nothing more than to see a presidential debate to discuss nothing but this amendment. My guess is Ron Paul would crush everyone, even the few candidates who might be able to recite this from memory. I think having this one enforced for real would completely revolutionize our current system. Crazy?

Yep, Federalism and Fred Thompson is the champion.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/izy79xQL4sw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/izy79xQL4sw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I only thought there was one Amendment... ;)

I think most of the Bill of Rights has been trampled upon. Third Amendment isn't too relevant anymore. But imagine how things would be if there were a strict constructionist SCOTUS and an executive to enforce their decisions. Well, a man can dream.

75% of the Federal government would be dismantled.

The 10th Amendment has been given exactly the weight, attention and interpretation that our Founding Fathers intended it to have.

The Commerce Clause is a hole in federalism large enough to drive a truck thru...

Huh?

Do you have any idea what the FFs meant when they wrote it, the context in which it was written , and the legal effect that was intended? People who suggest some deep meaning in the 10th amendment don't. It's the 18th century version of what lawyers call a zipper clause. It just means that by listing specific items of liberty in the first 9 amendments, the FFs didn't mean to inadvertently limit the freedoms to the ones enumerated. When you make a general statement (like the Constitution) but then list specific examples or exceptions to the general statement, you run the risk of turning the exceptions and specific examples into the controling part of the document, rather than the general statement you intended. So you insert a clause at the end where you say this is a list of specific examples, they are not exclusive and the main documents remains controling on all issues but the specific items listed. So the FFs included the 10th Amendment. It doesn't create new substantive rights, it's just a zipper clause.

That might be true IF the Bill of Rights had been part of the original Constitution AND there had been no subsequent amendments. But the BOR was added, IIRC, about five years after the Const. was ratified because Madison feared the Const. was not clear enough in its original form. Why would they add the 10 Amendment then? Seems to me it was to limit the feds from enacting all kinds of restrictions not specifially banned (to the feds) in the first nine amendments. Not saying no other laws could be written. But I think the 10 Amendment makes it pretty clear that such things were to be left to the states, not the feds. The whole point of the BOR was to limit the feds, not the states or the people. People think the BOR gives them rights. That's wrong. The BOR assumes certain rights are fundamental to all people and wants to make sure the feds don't trample them - the exact opposite of what has happened.

Ok - there's a good chance I'm showing my ignorance here, but I thought the BOR were passed concurrently with the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, as a condition of the states' ratification. Have I remembered this wrong all these years?

Haha, I've been waiting for this thread. And here it is.

Suddenly, now the federal government is too big?
There wasn't a single, tiny little peep from republicans during the last 8 years of Bush trampling the constitution, invading the privacy of common citizens, breaking environmental and immigration laws, and generally turning the federal government into a huge morass of bumbling, tax-sucking bureacracy.
And now the fed is too big?

[Strings begin and cry me a friggen river. Boo hoo hoo:(.]

Man, you have missed a lot of threads here and wrongly assumed people who criticized Bush were not Republicans.

Careful Rick, or you might get accused by some Bush supporter of being an anti-american, commie loving person of questionable parentage and legitimacy to be here in the US.

I've read the Federalist Papers and the 10th amendment is pretty darn simple. I don't suppose the founding fathers imagined their Federal government using commerce statutes to make end runs around the 10th amendment.

The 10th amendment is far more than a "zipper clause". It a powerful tool intended to limit central power and ensure the constitutionally limited sovereignty of the states.

Pretty simple stuff;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Disagree. Vehemently. You've not been listening. And if I haven't mentioned it here on the board, I disagree with the B2 spending policies and have since the first term.

California keeps trying to impose its own states rights but you guys keep whining :p

If CA's nutty politics was truly limited to the borders of CA, then no one outside would complain. But we all know that whatever happens in CA, eventually gets tried in the other states that never would have initiated it on their own.

That's just you. Rick is cool in my book. ;)

more flip flopping here than at IHOP Sunday morning. John Kerry would be proud. Hillary is going to enjoy all the freedoms that Bush abrogated and powers stole.

Man it'd be great if people could think more than 5 minutes ahead in the future.