Comments on: Rob Natelson: Understanding Federalism

By: Concepts You Will Not Hear During Budget Reform Debates – Florida Tenth Amendment Center

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:46:07 +0000

[...] the Ninth) was adopted to signal that no enumerated power should be stretched too much. Otherwise, federalism would be subverted. An important legal rule in the Founding Era (as today) is that documents should [...]

By: Protecting Rights: D.C. is the Worst Choice for the Job | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:04:29 +0000

[...] where the most difficult and the most divisive issues would be kept close to home. That is a system unique in history – where widely differing political, economic and religious viewpoints can live in [...]

By: Health Care and the Constitution « drkatesview

Health Care and the Constitution « drkatesview — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:06:04 +0000

By: The Liberty Voice » Lead Story » On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:28:46 +0000

By: On the Constitution, Beware the Word â€œClearlyâ€ | Florida Tenth Amendment Center

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:15:54 +0000

By: On the Constitution, Beware the Word “Clearly” | Tenth Amendment Center

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:19:02 +0000

By: Reject Chuck Schumer’s “Compromise” | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:48:52 +0000

[...] This idea sounds strangely familiar. In fact, it almost sounds like federalism. [...]

By: Jefferson’s Union | Tenth Amendment Center

Jefferson’s Union | Tenth Amendment Center — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:27:58 +0000

[...] But the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, at the time was already becoming what it is now, that is to say the arbiter of conflicts between the States and the federal government. In this case, the constitutional framework is threatened, since the federal government, not the Constitution, becomes the judge of its own expansion. More generally, if the States are expected to obey any federal law, regardless of whether the act had been issued according to the Constitution, only lip service is paid to the system of guarantees known as “federalism.” [...]

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:54 +0000

What I’m trying to tell you, Len, is that no one here is referring to “the people” as some mythical national people.

I’m certainly not. And, how you got that from Professor Natelson, I don’t know.

I think we all agree on that essential point!

By: Len

Len — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:55:59 +0000

Michael, right the sky is blue. In my original post, I said the people were sovereign..”He( to me) misinterprets â€œWE THE PEOPLEâ€, to mean all the people, as opposed to naming that source of power in contrast to the king or parliament or what have you.” Source of power = sovereignty. OK, I am going to smile and be done, but you were the one misintrepeting my statement first.