The Tenth Amendment Prohibited the “Living Constitution”

.... Yes... But good luck finding a politician who gives a damn about the Constitution. Hell the bastards write legislation that disolve whole big sections at a time (see The UnPatriotic Act for recent example).

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

”I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.”
–James Madison, letter to Henry Lee, 1824

Amen

"...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances." — Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party

I've said this before one my website... A living document can be changed. The Constitution can't be changed, we can only make additions to it with the amendments. The purpose for it not being changeable is to prevent the US from becoming like the socialist states in Europe at the time.

Well it is a "living document" in that it can be changed... but there's a specific process to changing it that the political class have been going around for decades now.

A "living, breathing constitution" goes hand in hand with moral relativism - there are no absolute rules.

The Constitution was not written for the people. It was written to remind "Government" of it's limitations. I am so thankful there are caring people with enough education to stay on top of problems like these. Unless the American people wake up and educate's themselves, we will lose our liberty. Remember this: Unless you know your rights,......you have none!

These scholarly arguments are very interesting - but ultimately this all comes down to money. People today expect a multitude of things from government. The only way to supply this multitude of things is with an endless supply of money. Who has an endless supply of money? Not local or state governments, only the Feds do. When we are willing & able to tell the Feds we don't need / want their cash then things will change. To be honest we may be too far gone for that. People want more services, more aid, without paying for it at any level (local, state, whatever). Sorry to be a downer, but that's how I see it.

We really do not need the Tenth Amendment, because if we study clause 17 of Article 1, Section 8 I think we will find what the Federal Government does not want us to find. It reads as follows:
Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Now, let us break this down:
To exercise exclusive Legislation: This is the power and the purpose.
In all Cases whatsoever: This is what is covered by the power and the purpose.
Over: This is a preposition used as a function word to indicate the possession of authority, power, or jurisdiction.
Such District: This refers to the newly created District of Columbia and tells us WHERE they may exercise their authority, power, or jurisdiction.
To exercise like Authority over all Places purchased: This tells us where else they may exercise their authority, power, or jurisdiction. They may ONLY do so on property they have legally purchased!
By the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be: This tells us that the States are superior to the Federal Government because the Federal Government must PURCHASE any land it needs and must have the consent or approval of the State's Legislature in order make that purchase.

If we sum up the information, what we find is that Congress only has authority, power, or jurisdiction over Federal Property, such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico (a Federal Territory), Military bases, Ports, and Federal Buildings. However, it only has such authority if those properties were legally purchase with the consent of the State's Legislature.
In simple terms, The Federal Government only has authority over Federal Property and the States are not Federal Property, therefore the Federal Government has absolutely NO authority over the States!

The Constitution cannot be a `Living Document', because it is actually a `Contract'. The Constitution is a Contract between this Great Nation and every Citizen of this Nation! It is an agreement as to what rights and powers the Nation (Federal Government) shall possess and what rights and power are left to the Citizens or the People.
As we all know, no one may violate a contract without facing legal repercussions. However, if you are the injured party in a contractual dispute, it is up to you to bring charges of contract violation. The other party is not going to openly admit that they have violated the contract. In fact they will most likely adamantly deny the violation and may even insist that their action were and are allowed under the contract.
It is up to us to actively protect and defend the Constitution. That means we must take action when ever our rights are being violated. The Census Bureau has been calling me for two years because I will not answer their Unconstitutional questions, and I have never called them back! I am also one of the only people on my block WITHOUT a Smartmeter! I will not allow them to violate my rights.
These are small steps, but I think they are in the right direction. I just hope people realize how special, how sacred Our Constitution is, because for the first time in human history a government was founded on the principle that the rights and power of the Individual precede and exceed the right and powers of government itself! Never before, and most likely never again will such a government exist. Unfortunately, we are on the verge of losing it simply because we have not been willing to stand in its defense. When we see violations of the Constitution we need speak up, we need to contact our Senators and our Representatives: State and Federal. We need to inform the Federal Government that We the People are in charge and we have a contract to prove it!

Awwww, man!
Ya-all is missin the only part left out of all this...
The States Unregulated Militia be The Police Force for exactly these reasons.
Sposed to send a contingent from each state to Washington to correct them thar problems...arrest and/or extradite each states persons/represetatives who are in violation, for trail, etc.
Seems we need some knowledge in action in order to equate any kind of wisdom in our resulting actions.
Hmmm?
There it be anyway.
Jus the messenger in this...
Enjoy!

No one can frame the analysis better than Jefferson.

A living constitution is in the end no constitution at all.......if by constitution we mean a limit on government. The final authority in a living constitution becomes nothing more than governments own discretion.

Rest of Letter:

A patent, once issued, is the highest evidence of title, and is a final determination of the existence of all facts. Walton v. United States, 415 F. 2d 121, 123 (I0th Cir. 1969)

I have been severely damaged by public officials and their Corporate Attorney’s that are ignorant of the Law of the Land . Besides interfering with my Civil Rights, they are committing fraud and interfering with a Federal Contract derived from a Treaty. My “Homestead” is not much but it is mine and all papers are certified and filed at the courthouse.

The Governor’s Office and the Commissioner of the General Land Office have both signed and affixed their Seal to this particular Patent. Please help, the only thing left for me is to contact anyone in the media that will listen.

Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

___________________
Linda-Cheryl Skoda
c/o 332 Bugscuffle Lane
Bowie, Texas [76230]

I am tired of these politions that will talk the talk until they are elected. When I see one walk the walk, I may consider voting in his favor. Example:__September 21, 2011___To my Governor of Texas, Rick Perry_Office of the Governor_State Insurance Building_1100 San Jacinto_Austin, Texas 78701 __Dear Sir,__I desperately need your help. I am in possession of a Land Grant/Patent that is being violated. __Barring specific reservation and subject to pre-established servitudes, a government land patent to an individual vests legal title and right to the located property to the extent it was held by the State or United States. It is considered in the nature of a compact and is an executed contract. It is a covenant that cannot be resumed, annulled or later modified by the grantor through legislation or otherwise. (A right vested, cannot be divested. Cited, 2 Dall. 297, 304

The term "living constitution" is a misnomer. Our constitution is an amendable document that can be used to promote liberty (the Bill of Rights) or undermine independence (the 16th and 17th amendments). Our and future generations depend on continued vigilance within this amendable process. Such as repealing freedom destroying social progressive laws and calling for limit setting amendments upon government. Unfortunately, James Madison, et al., did well to describe such limits of federal power with his commentaries, but then failed to include these defined federal and state roles within the ratified constitution. The 9th and 10th context should have been part of the original constitution. Thankfully these were added later as protections against unforeseen big government power grabbers. IMHO, the amendment process should be used to plug these compromising constitutional holes that social progressives manipulatively use to overreach into states' sovereign domestic affairs. The supreme law of the land should only be used to defend natural individual rights and create a fair playing field for interstate and foreign commerce. Sadly, it's been used as a free ticket for federal control and wrongful trespass.

My U.S. Representative said it best when describing his relationship to our republic's union under federalism. I've joined him in saying that I'm a Texan-American. I encourage everyone here to proudly hyphenate their American citizenry with their state residence. This in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Tenth Amendment.

I am a Quality Assurance Professional. There is on absolute law. There must be an outside source of absolute standards. For example, the pound. the change of a degree of temperature, and the yard is defined from one source in one place at specific physical conditions. You can be sure you are getting a pound of meat for a specific price because that is true. Otherwise there is chaos. The Declaration of Independence defined the moral reasons for changing the powers ordained of God, and the Constitution defined the laws of government to implement those morals.

The problem? Persons of title(esquire, judge, etc), shall not hold public office. Section of the forgotten 13th amendment that no one wants to talk about.

I like the article, but I have to admit I'm partial to an article by Jonah Goldberg in National Review of July 9, 2003:

"The Only Good Constitution is a Dead Constitution."

Goldberg offers many of the same arguments against a "living Constitution," but derives that idea regarding a "dead" Constitution.

The most feeble argument for a living Constitution is, "Times have changed." It's true. Times have changed, but the Constitution was not written to govern times it was written to govern men, and men have not changed. We still have among us those who would use the power of government to loot and enslave their fellow man. That's why we must return the Constitution to a state closer to the original and then leave it near death. See to it that changes can be made only through slow, painstaking, extreme effort as originally intended.

The constitution is neither dead nor live. Or, maybe, the document is both dead (fixed) and live
(amendable).

But it is the cornerstone of our government(s) both federal and states.

The framers knew it would be the key document for our self governance and were wise to add
an amendment process so that future changes, deletions, additions coud be made to the constitution
as may be needed.

Can the usurpers be arrested, prosecuted and convicted? I sure hope so. Anyway, now that all this is CLEAR, when can the purge begin? Since Holder is already being investigated, I would suppose that is a beginning.

The obama Healthcare Bill is the most recent usurpation of the rights separately of the states, and the people. Eternal vigilance has been and must always be the price of freedom. The people must act against those usurpations with the vote, November 2012.

Check "NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner (6th Edition)

I agree the Federal Government has usurped powers not specifically granted to it by the United States Constitution. The only way to return these powers to the States, or the People, has to be via intervention by the fifty State Legislatures reclaiming and denying these powers to the central Government. It does not require a decision or intervention by the United States Supreme Court as the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the three branches of the Federal Government and therefore also subject to the United States Constitution, and thereby the will of the People. It is the People who established the State Governments and then established the Federal (Central) Government as an agent to act as their representative in foreign affairs and as an arbitrator between the States in case of disputes, etc. Never was the Federal Government intended to exercise any power/powers beyond those delegated by the States by way of the compact known as the United States Constitution. The Constitution can never be allowed to be viewed or thought of as a living document. Although changes to the Constitution can be made by amendment, or by repealing an amendment, its wordage and structure is pertinent to each succeeding generation of Americans. To view it as a living document would allow the Federal Government to dictate its meaning and purpose which is exactly what has brought us to the brink of totalitarianism by Federal Government usurpation of non-delegated powers.

Shouldn't the title of this article be, "The Tenth Amendment Prohibits the "Living Constitution" ... ?

I'm sure all your high-school sophomore boy readers think your grey text is very cool. But those of us past our high-school years might appreciate more pragmatism—black text.

Reply to JKendal...the question you raise regarding "How do we take back those powers from the Federal gov't" is one I've seen many times from others. Most are confused and this erroneous position is dangerous and demonstrates a continuing misconception by the people. WE DO NOT NEED TO TAKE BACK POWERS WE'VE NEVER LOST! Just because the federal gov't has seized and co-opted a whole range of powers does not mean we've lost them. What is needed here is for the people to install men of courage and good sense in the political positions within the states. These courageous political leaders will then enforce the states rights through whatever means necessary. Today, we largely have an electorate that places politicians in office based on how well they make them LAUGH AND SMILE! And the result is that we have in place a national group of cowards in positions of power, with rare exceptions including Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul and a couple others from the 500 or so.

start arresting federal agents that intererfer in state rights, keep it up until they relent...

I would like to plant my stake into this argument and say that the tenth amendment uses the phrase 'powers delegated' which implies that the powers were delegated once to the federal government. This means that that any theory of an evolving constitution that gives the federal government more powers is false since powers were delegated only once so any new interpretation that gives the federal government more powers is wrong.

On the flip side, it may be possible to have an evolving constitution interpretation that DOESN'T give the federal government more powers. Those interpretations may be valid under the ninth and tenth amendment and preferable. I'll provide an example of what I mean. Consider the first amendment's freedom of speech. We know that prevents the federal government from banning any speech but speech implies thought since all forms of communication are simply attempts to communicate our thoughts to another. The first amendment's protection of freedom of speech also must protect freedom of thought since both can be considered the same (how can one form a thought without words?) thing. A new interpretation that prevents the federal government from enforcing thought crimes because of the first amendment would be considered valid since that interpretation eliminates a power of the federal government.

Perhaps this would be a good argument to use against the left because there are at times when something like the first amendment and any interpretation of it has to be updated for the current problems of our society. The founders never could think of the internet so how should the first amendment have to deal with ISP rights or internet data packets? These are good questions that the left brings up so a good answer is that the courts can have a new interpretation as long as that interpretation does not grant the federal government any additional powers. It satisfies the legitimate need of having to deal with the question of how old laws apply to new situations without having to yield to living constitution theory that forces us to concede to the left's demand for more government power.

Well put in a concise manner. This article is something that most people can read, hopefully grasp and do so without getting into abstractions, sophisms or what have one.

This is all well and good. However, the several states have abused the 10th Amendment when they clearly did NOT have the power to do so.

Article 6 Clause 2 states that this constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Since the 2nd Amendment is also part of the constitution, it applies equally to the Federal government and state governments. Neither has the authority to legislate firearms. However, the several states have used the 10th Amendment to do just that. The 10th Amendment does NOT negate the 2nd Amendment.

OUTSTANDING!

The only question that remains is: How do we take back our powers from the federal government? And the only logical answer is: we do it through our state legislatures. Many people have been indoctrinated to think that the only way to correct unconstitutional wrongs is ONLY through the US Supreme Court (which sides with the federal government most of the time). So if the SCOTUS rules in favor of a clearly unconstitutional federal act, what then? If we agree with its ruling then we've willfully given our rights to the federal government. This has been happening since the early to mid part of the twentieth century. If not, then who is going to enforce the Tenth Amendment? The federal government surely won't!

It's way past time we told the federal government - through our state legislatures - that we will no longer allow them to usurp our rights; that we are taking them back. While you're busy trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, the more important decision you should be making is who is going to represent you at the state and local level (decisions that most people gloss over - IF they even vote in state and local elections at all). Will they be strong when it comes time to stand up to the federal government? When election season rolls around, the most important question to ask them is: How are you going to protect my constitutional rights against an over-reaching federal government?

Agreed. And the overarching purpose for establishing the Constitution was to establish a framework of government. A framework as the name implies requires a frame, hence why we call The Founders "The Framers" almost interchangeably. And a frame, by definition, limits and sets boundaries. And those boundaries were foremost placed upon the federal government which was then being "defined" (also a limiting word). But to say (as do those who espouse the "living document" theory) that one has a frame that expands and contracts with the winds of change would make the whole notion of needing a framework meaningless and antithetical to the purpose of the framers.