Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Tenth Amendment Twist

This Tenth Amendment insanity has picked up steam, or hot air, by the tea partiers who don't really have a plan and conservatives trying to drum up money. A quick search explained everything for me, because again, the whole argument is based on nothing, zero, a misdirection play and BS. Check out what I clipped from Wiki:

The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:

“ The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution's ratification.

After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.[2] However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

Got that, added nothing. Just like the conservative party today.

1 comment:

  1. Now we're getting somewhere. I posted an article titled, "The Triumph and Tragedy of Fred Thompson," which begins with some tongue-in-cheek fiction, but hits very hard later on.

    Confusion is winning the day among conservatives. They see what they want to see. You could mention Section 8, Clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause) which I researched just as you did, and their eyes simply glaze over. Hamilton fought FOR it because without the clause, taxation would be impossible, and without federal taxation we might as well remain colonies.

    Here's the point as regards today's debate over healthcare. Without everyone "in the pool" when it comes to private sector health insurance, any sort of omni-care, if you will, simply will not work. So it is absolutely "necessary and proper" for the government to ensure that the program works, just as taxation makes for a unified nation that works. If challenged, the courts will be forced to uphold based on Art. 8, Sect. 18.

    It all goes back to the original fight between the federalists (Hamilton) and the Democratic Republican anti-federalists (Jefferson) The conservatives today haven't a clue as to their own heritage.

    Here's my article, by the way, on (handle: fritzwilliam) You can email me through the site if you'd like.

    I love your website. I'm trying to come up with something like it (under construction: The Ventura News-Commenter).