Do to opposition in our Declaration of Independence even this was obscured and documented truths removed from focus which would have gave us a much clearer picture, a more defined foundation in which to decide from. Surely our main principals reside there as well many of the documented truths that were not removed or altered from their original intent.

Today we still don't get it, We the People stands for the people, the public who decide to live as A Republic shall use these principals and these warnings and these instructions to wart off the enemy. Since we have not applied any of these we are left with our mirrors and have no one but ourselves to blame. Not because we are not capable but rather easily swayed by acceptance and what is popular as to not stick out amongst the crowd. This is also cowardly and highly dishonest to ourselves and only hidden from our own lack of review.

No one and I mean not one of us can get off by the blame for we are responsible human beings capable of performing that which we decide by putting our minds to work and our focus on and our determination to move forward. Educating each other about what we learn about ourselves becomes the biggest teacher and lesson of all and we can find the best answers to fit such a need. We don't even have to go discover it again because it resided still today in the Declaration of Independence and the finest document ever printed but better yet the original draft does as well and we are capable of putting two and two together. I dare anyone of you to really research this document and dare see what I see. When I located it I could not believe my eyes and still today I am totally blown away by the wealth of information it has given me.

Remember this little truth; that no idea existing around you does so without the decision by all those who manifest it, not one. This means we are far more powerful than you think today but if you actually knew with certainty this course would change period.

Congresspeople don't sit around thinking up laws they'd like to write. "Gee, I think I'll rewrite the 1935 Telecommunications Act today." Rather, a company seeking to do some new thing, which the law currently does not permit, comes to his office with a bag of cash and says, "If you can get the telecom laws changed for us, we'll make sure you get re-elected." That's what government is.

Now, suppose you simply move that legislator's desk and chair from Washington DC to your state capital. Do you seriously think the businessman can't find him, and again buy the favor he needs? Why does anyone believe that changing the venue changes the form? And even if the business has to go to 50 capitals, so what? They do that all the time. That's what lobbying is all about.

The general reaction here is to rebel against the pain of laws acting as intrusions into your life. That's a well understood symptom. But the disease is an infestation of corporate corruption into the public policy making machinery. It will not matter one bit where you physically locate the levers of that machinery. The infestation will simply follow.

This whole Tenth Amendment business suffers from a lack of clarity about cause and effect. What I have noticed in so many writings here, is that there is an assumption that life runs according to political theories. Change the theory, and life will change. This is not reality. It is an artificial, abstract construct which is existing only in the minds of the faithful here. In short, it is a fantasy. But, don't accept that critique, instead look at actual evidence, just as you would as a jurist.

Go examine how the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 came into existence. I do not mean the political process, I mean the private interest process which drives and controls and manages the political process. Here's a hint: There were over 1,500 corporations lobbying Congress specifically over the health care bill. They spent over $1B, and used more than 5,400 personnel to assault the Congress. And, that's just the public information. Try to imagine if you will the back-room, undisclosed totals.

There is no political theory in operation in US governments. There is only competing interests, and private morality. And that's how it always is. Nothing new has happened, except that the tools used by those private interests have become sharper and more effective. If you want to change the outcomes of this, you have to attack the actual disease, and that is not a theory of any kind. It is not any part of the Constitution, or any one of it's amendments.

The obvious reality of our system is that the Constitution is toothless and ignored and has no intrinsic force beyond mere symbolism. And while so many groups are worshiping this symbolic abstraction, the business at hand of interests seeking favor is running full bore, full speed ahead and running your life.

Any person can awake from this dreaming of theoretical operation. They can spend a few months at the library examining actual evidence of how things work in the USA. When they have been fully awakened, they can then change their behaviors to match the actual conditions as the really exist.

Some of these comments don't actually support the ideas behind the Tenth Amendment. They are simply reactionary far right politics.

But let me also point out that very few people believe he can win precisely because he has lost so many times and his positions on policy questions are so at odds many of the historic positions and sentiment of the existing republican alliance to say nothing of the general American electorate.

Given time both facts could (in principle) be changed, but it seems unlikely that there is enough time to make up the difference before the 2012 primaries.

Never-mind the Constitutional question which I was not intentionally referring to, or do you reject the notion that it is possible for congress & the president to carry out a non-isolationist foreign policy under the Federal Constitution of 1787?
I do standby my generalization that being a purist is another way of saying being a loser in a large Federation. I make this statement on the ground that the larger the Federation the more potently diverse and thus divisible on any given matter.
Therefore any man who has a set of policy’s on every area of government is bound to upset the majority on one or two of them. (Hence the need for a more limited domain government the larger group of the governed.)
Ron Paul seems to doggedly sticks to his strict ideology as it applies to all aspects of all policy’s. Thus I call him a Purist, and in a certain light this is respectable. But in the light of a large (thus inertly diverse) Federation it is most likely a defeatist attitude. Particularly when some of them Policy positions are at odds with the core believes of certain key factions.

As I said if Ron Paul wants the republican nomination he would be well advice to moderate on some of them POLICY credentials, NOT constitutional credential to be more palatable to the whole Republican base.
I’m not sure how Paul can do that now given he has run so many time firmly establishing these principles, which of course brings us both back to my original sentiment about him not helping himself and having run(in lost) too many times.

Re: you observation on the Bill of Rights is correct. It simple was intended to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the rights specified. It doesn't grant rights. We already possess them.

Also if he wants the republican nomination he need to at least moderate on his foreign policy and defense credentials. Yes I know that's not what his followers want, but its what the majority of the Republican party needs if hes going to win their support.

Being a purist is generally anther way of saying being a loser in a large Federation.