<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why the 10th Amendment?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Boldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-257819</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-257819</guid>
		<description>Actually, ice-nine, while you make some important points, you completely misunderstand and therefore, misrepresent yourself and the position of the founders.

In the articles of confederation, the federal government was limited to those powers &quot;expressly delegated&quot; to them - and you are entirely right that they deliberately removed that word from the 10th amendment.

why?  it&#039;s simple.

A government limited to those powers expressly delegated (specifically listed - to the word) would be stuck in an awful position.  The government would have to always choose between doing virtually nothing, or violating the law every day.

Here&#039;s an example.  Congress is authorized, in the constitution, to create post offices.  But, there&#039;s nothing in the constitution that specifically authorizes them to hire labor to do so, or buy land to do so, etc.  So, if they are limited to the express powers, they wouldn&#039;t be authorized to do those things that are &quot;necessary and proper&quot; to establish the post office.

The founders, and those who ratified the 10th, were wise in creating a government with implied powers.  But, they made it quite clear that all implied powers must be directly applicable to a power enumerated in the constitution.

That rule has never been repealed.

Therefore, in order for the government to follow the constitution it must first find authorization for its activities specifically in the constitution, and if it can&#039;t, it bears the burden of proof to show that what it&#039;s doing is necessary to carry out one of those listed powers.

Period.

As far as &quot;losing to lincoln&quot; - you&#039;re sounding a bit like Cheney there, aren&#039;t you?  Would you use that same argument to say that people in Iraq who don&#039;t like their new imperial overlords are just complaining about losing? 

Absurd.

Conquering people does not make something right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, ice-nine, while you make some important points, you completely misunderstand and therefore, misrepresent yourself and the position of the founders.</p>
<p>In the articles of confederation, the federal government was limited to those powers &#8220;expressly delegated&#8221; to them &#8211; and you are entirely right that they deliberately removed that word from the 10th amendment.</p>
<p>why?  it&#8217;s simple.</p>
<p>A government limited to those powers expressly delegated (specifically listed &#8211; to the word) would be stuck in an awful position.  The government would have to always choose between doing virtually nothing, or violating the law every day.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an example.  Congress is authorized, in the constitution, to create post offices.  But, there&#8217;s nothing in the constitution that specifically authorizes them to hire labor to do so, or buy land to do so, etc.  So, if they are limited to the express powers, they wouldn&#8217;t be authorized to do those things that are &#8220;necessary and proper&#8221; to establish the post office.</p>
<p>The founders, and those who ratified the 10th, were wise in creating a government with implied powers.  But, they made it quite clear that all implied powers must be directly applicable to a power enumerated in the constitution.</p>
<p>That rule has never been repealed.</p>
<p>Therefore, in order for the government to follow the constitution it must first find authorization for its activities specifically in the constitution, and if it can&#8217;t, it bears the burden of proof to show that what it&#8217;s doing is necessary to carry out one of those listed powers.</p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>As far as &#8220;losing to lincoln&#8221; &#8211; you&#8217;re sounding a bit like Cheney there, aren&#8217;t you?  Would you use that same argument to say that people in Iraq who don&#8217;t like their new imperial overlords are just complaining about losing? </p>
<p>Absurd.</p>
<p>Conquering people does not make something right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ice-nine</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-257818</link>
		<dc:creator>ice-nine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-257818</guid>
		<description>America already tried it your way. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It didn&#039;t work and it didn&#039;t last long. The current Constitution took its place with a much stronger federal system and has worked since 1789 and in the process settling the question of states rights preeminence by force of arms during the American Civil War. The tenth amendment was included lastly as a sop to the anti-federalists, but it does not deny Article 1 of the Constitution which states &quot;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..&quot; . The founders could have written the 10th Amendment to expressly limit that Article but did not. And it&#039;s strange how this question always seems to come up whenever the right-wing has lost an election. Didn&#039;t like losing to Lincoln, doesn&#039;t like it any better to Obama. Oh well. Have a good day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>America already tried it your way. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It didn&#8217;t work and it didn&#8217;t last long. The current Constitution took its place with a much stronger federal system and has worked since 1789 and in the process settling the question of states rights preeminence by force of arms during the American Civil War. The tenth amendment was included lastly as a sop to the anti-federalists, but it does not deny Article 1 of the Constitution which states &#8220;The Congress shall have Power &#8211; 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..&#8221; . The founders could have written the 10th Amendment to expressly limit that Article but did not. And it&#8217;s strange how this question always seems to come up whenever the right-wing has lost an election. Didn&#8217;t like losing to Lincoln, doesn&#8217;t like it any better to Obama. Oh well. Have a good day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T L Holaday</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-255515</link>
		<dc:creator>T L Holaday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 16:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-255515</guid>
		<description>The slaveholders you quote certainly did not want a government that would interfere with them raping and murdering their kidnap victims.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The slaveholders you quote certainly did not want a government that would interfere with them raping and murdering their kidnap victims.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-255255</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 22:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-255255</guid>
		<description>This is a serious threat to the federal government and I think as Obama proceeds he will force more states to assert their 10th Amendment rights.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a serious threat to the federal government and I think as Obama proceeds he will force more states to assert their 10th Amendment rights.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Cate</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-255251</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Cate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 20:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-255251</guid>
		<description>Do you have some realistic steps we can now take?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you have some realistic steps we can now take?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christina</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/why-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-255250</link>
		<dc:creator>Christina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 19:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1540#comment-255250</guid>
		<description>Government, politics &amp; early American history have only been an interest of mine for the last year ot two, so there&#039;s alot that I&#039;m still getting a grasp of.  Thomas Jefferson has been a recent topic on my blog, &amp; as I&#039;ve read about him, and about republicanism, I&#039;ve often wondered if today&#039;s Republicans are what he was talking about, or intended?

This article has shed alot of light on the situation, for me.  It is very appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Government, politics &amp; early American history have only been an interest of mine for the last year ot two, so there&#8217;s alot that I&#8217;m still getting a grasp of.  Thomas Jefferson has been a recent topic on my blog, &amp; as I&#8217;ve read about him, and about republicanism, I&#8217;ve often wondered if today&#8217;s Republicans are what he was talking about, or intended?</p>
<p>This article has shed alot of light on the situation, for me.  It is very appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

