Yep! that’s how we got into this unaccountable mess in the first place.

Y’know, I don’t know how many times and how many different ways I’ve said this in the past (a bunch, let’s put it that way), but I think it bears repeating again — if the ninth and tenth amendments are effectively rendered meaningless, then you may as well throw the entirety of the Bill of Rights (yep, including the sacred first amendment) and the Constitution itself on the ash heap, because, in that event, its all worth less than the paper its written on, right down to the dotting of the “i’s” and the crossing of the “t’s”.

Concerning the individual who asked the question, “is there any constitutional legitimacy in the “Tenthers’” argument?,” I can almost envision this person thinking to himself “hmmm., I wonder why the tenthers are called tenthers?” In any event, I’m personally not inclined to just give the answer to someone like that when I know it. Lead him in the right direction, yes. But give him the answer? Hell no!

This is not going to be a very satisfactory answer to your question, but I’m willing to take a stab at it nonetheless, even as I’m compelled to point out that I’m by no means a constitutional expert, nor by any other means an expert on the much maligned fourteenth amendment. So here goes:

The SCOTUS has ruled numerous times over the course of the last hundred years or so that the fourteenth amendment gives the federal courts jurisdiction to apply the particular provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States. And it (The Court) seems to make no great distinction between doing so to protect the inalienable rights of the People on the one hand, and to deprive them of their rights on the other, which is merely my opinion but there ya go. Kelo et al vs. New London is a case in point, and as I recall (it’s been a while since I read the court’s opinion in the case, so don’t put a whole lot of faith in what I say on the following point) the Court, in Kelo, cited several earlier rulings to establish this. So, Kelo is probably as good a place as any to start looking if you want to establish what the Court’s position is concerning your question about the fourteenth amendment and how it might apply in such a case.

Beyond that, there is, of course, Article IV to contend with. More particularly Article IV, section I, or, “The Full Faith and Credit Clause” as it is called.

It’s astounding how sacred the 1st Amendment is to some people, while they may or may not know anything about the less ‘popular’ amendments in the bill fo rights (we’re changing that) such as the 10th. It’s that favorite tactic of the ignorant- minimizing the importance of what one knows little about.

This line gave me a good chuckle (and I need one now and again):

One person asked me if Tenthers’ argument had any constitutional legitimacy. My answer was, well, yes.

LOL! I think my answer would have been more along the lines of — “hmmm … that’s a great question, why don’t you consult the constitution on it.”