Comments on: Massachusetts Sues Feds Under the 10th Amendment

By: What is a Tenther? | Tenth Amendment Center

What is a Tenther? | Tenth Amendment Center — Thu, 06 May 2010 19:56:46 +0000

[...] have rebuked us for betraying conservative principles ie… Gun Rights, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Drugs and prayer in school to name a [...]

By: The ‘tenthers’ | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The ‘tenthers’ | Tenth Amendment Center Blog — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:42:31 +0000

[...] wonder if they call Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley a “Tenther”? Â She invoked the 10th amendment in a federal lawsuit that’s in favor of gay marriage. Â Or how about the many marijuana legalization activists that see the 10th as prohibiting the [...]

By: world of idiots and liars

world of idiots and liars — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:39:21 +0000

About half of what the feds do is illegal under the tenth amendment. Whether or not you approve of gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, fecaphilia,
dirty sanchez, golden showers, cleveland steamers, rusty trombones, etc is not the issue. The reason the feds are able to abuse the tenth amendment in the first place is because of millions of stupid morons that come crying to them every time they don’t like what someone else is doing in the privacy of their own home. Those of us with enough logic and reason going on between our ears to understand that the feds use that as an excuse to take our rights away are in a futile struggle against a lot of very stupid people and the evil rat bastards who exploit them, end of story.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:32:06 +0000

As long as they don’t try to make my state recognizing their “gay marriages” or impose it on us as well. I’m perfectly happy regarding “marriages” made in the State of Massachusetts as nothing more then a civil union.

But I got a sick feeling that their real aim here is not to protect the rights of Massachusetts, but rather impose Massachusetts values (or lack there of) on everyone else.

By: JMB

JMB — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:00:56 +0000

Thatâ€™s a Good question icr, which leads me to have another question.
Can this federal government be forced financially, to support one Stateâ€™s claim of sovereignty, over another.

There is nothing more foolish then demanding, that a thief, should become more generous.

On The Official Website of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.
This Statement is madeâ€¦

â€œToday, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts takes an important step toward ensuring equality and fairness for its citizens and maintaining our authority as a sovereign state,â€

The first thing I would like to know is, were the particular specifics, of this lawsuit personally addressed by the legislators of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and have the legislators of Massachusetts properly concurred, that the sovereignty of their State is being violated in these particular manners of which this lawsuit makes its claims.

These are just some of the questions, so far, that I my self am looking to have answered.

By: icr

icr — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:00:16 +0000

This is a little difficult to discuss for some because of all the propaganda in favor of same-sex marriage, but does anyone think that if a state passed laws that legalized polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage among minors or lowered the age of marriage to nine the FedGov would be compelled to recognize such marriages?

By: JMB

JMB — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:52:47 +0000

When any federal tax credit law, becomes itself, used as if it were a federal welfare program, all Constitutions are violated.

Maybe Iâ€™m just hoping to be admired by someone for my own forbearance, or maybe I just have an unhealthy addiction that looks into sophomoric judgments. But either way, this one has caught my attention.
Oh lucky me, it looks like there is still some time left to investigate this one. lol

By: BJC

BJC — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:18:58 +0000

This lawsuit provides information on a key split on interpretation of the Tenth Amendment between laissez-faire federalists and constitutionalist-republican federalists. For the sake of full disclosure, I should state from the outset that I’m in the second camp, and I hope I’m being completely fair in characterizing the first camp as those who believe that anything not explicitly, literally barred in the Constitution to state governments is constitutionally legit. I characterize my group’s stance of constitutionalist-republican federalism as taking seriously the implications of the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” resting as that guarantee does on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” That precludes any legitimate government from redefining marriage away from its foundation in biological procreation between one husband and one wife.

Frankly, I have no interest in intruding on what consenting adults not hurting each other do when they move behind the privacy of their bedroom door. But when they make a vociferously public demand that all others be aware of their private sexual behavior and treat that private behavior as their public identity, I disagree. That the Massachusetts AG is demanding that all U.S. citizens concur with a Massachusetts judicial fiat blessing homosexuality via government recognition of “same-sex marriage” (and by a 4-3 one-vote margin, at that) is abominable tyranny.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:01:34 +0000

Yes, Jeff, it’s a little bit complicated, but I think you’re all over this one.

By: Jeff Matthews - Houston, TX

Jeff Matthews - Houston, TX — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:51:12 +0000

Rephrased:

The DOMA is more pro-10th than the Mass. lawsuit is. The Mass. lawsuit is turning the 10th into hypocrisy.

Mass. wants to partially defeat the fed, so that now, it can use the fed to coerce the states into funding welfare to Mass. citizens.

As Boldin points out, correctly for the most part, a “right” should exist when it does not intrude on somebody else.

Mass. is trying to turn the 10th on its head. I would not take this lawsuit as “friendly” in any way toward the 10th movement. It is designed to coerce various states’ citizens to fund additional welfare to a new set of Mass. citizens.