Comments on: The Forgotten Amendment

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:14:56 +0000

Jeff: – this is an extremely important question, and I feel your pain living here in CA as well.

First of all, we have to recognize the source of the problem – and that’s the fact that the federal government has created a situation where gun regulation is almost encouraged. Get rid all the federal interference on everything from guns to pot to marriage and everything in between, and we’ll be able to focus our efforts properly and reduce the change of this happening on a local level.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:28:37 +0000

I have a question it might be alittle off this subject but is a very good question in my mind. If the 10 amendment allows the state to declare soverenty from the federal goverment for passing laws that are not granted in the constitution. How is it that the state can do the same thing and not be held accountable for violateing my second amendment rights? For instance I live in California and constantly are second amendment rights are being attacked by the puplic safety commity. And it seems that the people don’t have a voice here Im getting sick of this blatant attack on my second amendment rights. Were is it in the constitution that holds the states accountable to the constitution?

By: Bruce Frykman, Elk River MN

Bruce Frykman, Elk River MN — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:26:06 +0000

The entire Bill of Rights is a redundant appendage added to the constitution which actually has resulted in weakening it by turning the entire document on its head.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to strictly enumerate the legitimate functions that the federal government could legally undertake. It was in fact the citizens granting the federal government a few enumerated “rights.” If it wasn’t enumerated in the document, then the federal goverment was operating ouside of its legally confined boundarys.

Then some idiots decided to “improve it” by adding a “bill of rights” that the federal government was supposedly going to return to the people as some kind of favor????

The federal government has no enumerated power to grant or deny rights to anyone. This is tanamount to the janitor(the federal government) granting priviledges and rights to the board of directors (…and we the citizens are indeed the board of directors of the federal government)

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:09:31 +0000

I just want to point out that this isn’t a new thing. George Washington was the first president to break this by creating the bank. The supreme court agreed with the elastic clause found in section 8, clause 18 which states:
“The 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.”
The supreme court interprets this as saying, it is good for America, the federal government can do it. In situations where this is called into question, such as setting the drinking age to 21, the federal government had to threaten all of the states with losing their federal funding for interstates seeing as how the federal government could not actually impose that law.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:53:07 +0000

amazing…i took ap gov last year, and although we talked about the imperial presidency and the abuses of congress, we just ignored the tenth amendment. It just seemed to weak to support any of the actions that are happening today. It’s nice to know that at least some members of government are still willing to give power to the people.

By: bobbo

bobbo — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:49:16 +0000

yea uhh it pretty much sucks everyone DOSENT want to do said thing of actually ABIDING by the U.S. Constitution tho