Comments on: The Tenth Amendment and the Joy of Federalism http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/06/25/the-tenth-amendment-and-the-joy-of-federalism/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:56:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: DeAnna http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/06/25/the-tenth-amendment-and-the-joy-of-federalism/comment-page-1/#comment-126430 DeAnna Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:42:07 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/06/25/the-tenth-amendment-and-the-joy-of-federalism/#comment-126430 The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution was ratified, so the powers of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court were already laid out before it was ratified. What gives Congress power is not really in the Bill Of Rights, but Article 1 of the Constitution (FYI, the President’s powers are in Article 2, and the Supreme Court’s powers are in Article 3 or 4). These are the enumerated powers of Congress, but the last line is the infamous “necessary and proper” clause, otherwise known as implied powers. It states, “[Congress shall have power] 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.” If you check landmark Supreme Court cases over the years, they tend to flip-flop on what they use as the backing of their decisions, sometimes choosing the states’ right’s amendment, and sometimes using the Congressional powers article, depending on the era. In the early ’30s, your opinions would have been on point with the Supreme Court, as many of Roosevelt’s earlier programs of the New Deal were struck down for precisely what you are opining. It wasn’t until Owen Roberts changed his mind that the Supreme Court supported Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.

Now, you can argue that the Arts and federal influence in education are not “necessary” nor “proper,” but the Department of Education probably came up because Congress made a law or bill (or many) somewhere and needed to build a federal institution to enforce it (or them), which is constitutional. I personally don’t know how it came up, I’m just giving an example. You can argue that the Arts aren’t necessary, but over half of Congress thought it was at some point, and although you think you’re wasting tons and tons of tax dollars, you’d be surprised at how little of your tax dollars go into it as opposed to health (23%), defense (21%), and social security (22%). Only about three percent goes into education, and the Arts fits into the “Other” category, which receives only seven percent.

I don’t have any sources for you on any of this (sorry) because I’m just going through the notes I have for my college political science class, but I can understand your principle, the main point of this article, but I somewhat (not totally) disagree with just that one argument you made.

]]>