Further, the 10th amendment provides that anything not given by the Constitution to the feds is retained by the States and the people. This means that the supremacy clause and commerce clause, which are both part of the Constitution (whatever you make of them), remain intact.

When you're dealing with intellectually dishonest people (aka 'liars'), there is no way to tie them down with language. They will always find an argument that suits their needs, even if it seems patently absurd to someone else.

Sadly, it is for this reason that we are at the point that we are seriously considering nullification, secession, constitutional conventions, etc.

At that time the word carried with it the idea of making the subject 'regular' so it would work properly, reliably and smoothly as in its current-day meaning when we 'regulate' the action on a piano by adjusting it to work as it was originally designed.

"Regulate" did not mean "to totally control every aspect of according to whim" as governmental agencies often try to do today when they pass "regulations" pursuant to legislative authorizations. (This same idea applies to a "well-regulated" militia which was intended to mean a "properly functioning" militia.)

As originally used, the words 'regulate commerce' were intended to give Congress the power to keep commerce smoothly flowing between and among the States. The goal was the smooth flow of COMMERCE so as to encourage it. Controlling every aspect of the lives of Americans for "socially desirable outcomes" was NOT part of the original idea of making commerce regular.

Lawyers are wont to find any opening and exploit it as much as possible to get the result they desire. In our system, that's what we're hired for and paid to do. Truth and consistency are not goals lawyers seek for their clients. We seek results. We argue for black today and white tomorrow. This is partly why I believe historians generally make better Constitutional scholars than law professors.

Many of the members of the Supreme Court, themselves all lawyers, don't care what words meant back when the Constitution was drafted because they are still playing lawyer and trying to get the outcome they desire 'for the good of America' as they see it.

If they did care what the words meant, they would find that some of the words used in the Constitution don't have exactly the same meaning they did back in the 1780's. The Constitution makes perfect sense when read with that knowledge but becomes inconsistent and unworkable without that knowledge. The Commerce Clause is a perfect example. There are many others.

In truth, most people don't want to be bound by a written, unchanging Constitution and so they use many tricks to avoid results they deem undesirable. This intellectual dishonesty is maddening to people such as I who believe strongly in following the written Constitution regardless of the outcome. If the outcome is so terrible, we can all agree to amend it as provided in the document itself. Changing it on the fly, as the US Supreme Court has done for 200+ years, is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also very stupid for, in the long run, it will lead to the destruction of our country.

yes…commerce at a whole new level is what this mandate brings us. even more important is our automatic use of the word regulate to mean the power to require or prohibit an activity. it does not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the individual."

Another might have read something like "Congress shall make no law respecting the sovereignty of the individual over their person."

Again, I am no lawyer, but it's my profound belief that all human rights begin with the INDIVIDUAL, and that any rights a state may have are grants from the same.

Dave

I am no legal scholar, but it goes something like "The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states, and to the individual.

I do not believe the framers could have concieved a time when a persons sovereign right to blow their head off, drink themselves to death, get fat as a pig, or whatever else might be their "…pursuit of happiness" would become the business of the almighty state as long as the gunshot, drunkeness, or whatever was pursued in private.

But, here we are…
Dave