What’s the Senator’s understanding of the 10th Amendment? “Have to see what the courts say.” In other words, if the federal government wants to do it, and another branch of that same federal government says OK, it doesn’t matter what the constitution says, means, or intends.
I respectfully disagree with larry f, in that the tone actually helped emphasize the articulate manner in which the argument was presented. Bottom line, however, is if this will bring about change. If nothing else, the argument about the items not found in the first 9 amendments should be under the states rule is a very valid one, and one that should be communicated more and more until the idea of the 10th amendment is clear to all potential voters.
I didn't have a problem with the tone, either. Personally, I don't have any respect for these thugs in office - and the guy actually went out of his way to say that he "respects the office" - to make sure his "tone" was "acceptable"
Feingold was happy to give him the ok. Guess Senators just like feeling powerful like that...
