The 10th Amendment, The States And The People
78
Part 1 - Historical Perspective
Being a Constitutionalist, you know one of the people who believe in the strict interpretation of the US Constituion, I naturally also tend to be a states' rights type of guy. Historically speaking, many of the individual states demanded the inclusion of the 10th Amendment into The Bill of Rights before the final ratification of that document became the law of the land. Keep in mind that this nation was created as a Republic, not a democracy. We are a Republic with democracy playing a role in our electoral processes. The Founding Fathers knew that to grant unlimited powers to a central, federal authority tends to attract tyrannical treatment. After all, they had to fight a Revolutionary War to have that yoke of tyranny removed from around their necks.
The wording of the 10th Amendment is rather simple with a specific intent behind that simplicity. It essentially is there to guarantee States' rights. The actual Constitution was designed to grant the federal government limited and enumerated powers only. Enumerated means listed and they are right there for your reading pleasure. If you've never read the US Constitution, and many have not, then I suggest that you do. It's dry reading in places admittedly but as a citizen you should possess the knowledge of its contents. Anything not enumerated, by the power of the 10th Amendment, belongs to the states or the people themselves.
The founding father's believed in powering down, not powering up. The first part of this Hub is a history lesson so that readers can refresh themselves, or maybe in some cases, understand how the 10th Amendment came about and the how individual states framed their thinking back in that era. In short, what was their reasoning behind the amendment.
The actual date of the colonists declared their independence wasn't July 4th as many believe. In fact the individual colonies, in concert with each other, declared their independence from England on July 2, 1776. July 4th was the day that declaration was announced, not voted upon and declared. On July 2nd they became essentially 13 sovereign states. Similar to being 13 separate countries uniting together in the war effort to kick King George III to the curb. They established their own governments and there were no legal ties between them. Cooperation with each other was the ticket of the day,specifically in the war effort.
This wasn't a willy nilly plan at all. There were proposals made on June 6th, 1776 with Richard Henry Lee from Virginia being one of the architects. He proposed to the Congress of that time that independence be declared and that a confederation be established. It is named "The Lee Resolution" if you care to do further research.
A committee was established (see how things sometimes never change) to study the various aspects of creating a confederation. Their proposal was submitted to Congress in the summer of 1777, went through a number of revisions and was ultimately passed on November 17th of 1777. Many people may be under the misconception that on July 4th of 1776 someone went - POOF - and we were a country, not quite. What was created were The Articles of Confederation, which weren't the law of the land upon passage. Each state had to then determine whether they were buying into it or opting out. It wasn't until March 1st of 1781, when the last state of Maryland ratified the Articles, that they joined the other twelve United States and this nation was formally born.
Why did it take so long? Besides having to fight the redcoats, the citizens of the individual states were concerned about having to give up too much local authority to a new centralized, national government. Wasn't that what they were fighting about in the first place? Was it wise to rush into replacing one tyrant with another? The status quo at the time was that each state was sovereign and they weren't keen on relinquishing their local power to some far away authority. The arguments at the time centered on states' rights versus national rights and it got a bit heated at times.
The Founding Fathers weren't dummies. To help quell the debate the following wording is in Article II of the Articles:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
They specifically wanted to limit the power of the national government even then. The Articles of Confederation were a very weak form of government to the point of being a functional failure. There was no authority to tax to support the powers given to the national government. Delegates could either attend sessions or be AWOL (sounds like some of the state legislatures of late, doesn't it?). It turned out to be such a weak form of governance that it was ultimately dissolved and the United States Constitution was written to replace the loose goose they initially created.
The US Constitution was actually penned in 1789. But it still wasn't the law of the land. Once again the individual States had to ratify the document. The debates raged again concerning certain weaknesses which the Constitution failed to address, States' rights again being one of them. There were two factions involved in the dispute - the Federalist party and the Anti-federalist party.
The federalists included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. Their position was that diluting the Constitution wasn't necessary as it would dilute the power of a federal government too much resulting in the same problems that were created by The Articles of Confederation.
The Anti-federalist were led by Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry. This group was concerned about the Constitution omitting the natural rights of the people such as freedom of speech, religion and the press and not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. They felt that the Constitution was worded too weakly to protect the individual rights of the States and the people. The Federalists felt that since the document only granted certain powers to the federal government anyway, why was there a need to list other protections.
The fix to that particular problem is the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution which states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In layman's terms - Don't Tread On Me! Just because a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean the federal government has the right to intrude into that area. Back to the ratification process which was on a slippery slope. It was uncertain whether enough states would ratify the new Constitution as they were concerned about giving a federal authority too much power, having to abrogate the state's powers and not insuring - in writing - the individual's basic human rights. The Founding Fathers had traveled down that road recently and weren't prone to go there again.
These parties knew how to compromise. The Federalists from Massachusetts crafted what we now know to be The Massachusetts Compromise. This required that a list of proposed amendments be sent to our first Congress if the Anti-Federalists would agree to ratify the new Constitution. Obviously they trusted each other, the Constitution was ratified and the new government was formed. These were men of character. They trusted in each other but the distrust of a strong central government was still remained.
Our form of government actually began operating on March 4th of 1789 when a new Congress convened. On June 8th a list of 20 proposed amendments was offered up by James Madison for consideration. Those 20 naturally included the 10th Amendment which was very similar in wording to what can be found in The Articles of Confederation concerning the issue. Congress voted to accept 12 of the 20 that September. 10 of those 12 passed muster when Virginia voted to ratify and they became law on December 15th of 1791. What they had achieved was the birth of The Bill Of Rights.
The core idea of reserving the rights of the states remained an issue for many years as you should surmise. They knew what they knew and what we need to not ever forget - Too much power in a centralized government invites tyranny.
It's important that we read, understand and now teach true American history rather than any sanitized version. Part 2 of our discussion will follow shortly. We'll continue with further examination of the 10th Amendment.
Class adjourned. Be prepared for a pop quiz the next time we meet.
The Frog Prince loves his nation and is worried about the present course we are on, as you should also be. Examine closely what is occurring in Washington today in context with our Founding Father's knowledge of the dangers of a big, centralized authority. Food for thought.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (10)
- Funny
- Awesome (7)
- Beautiful (4)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
nicomp - I'm sure our Founding Fathers are sitting up in Founding Father's Heaven shaking their heads and discussing how far away we have strayed from their masterpiece of governing this nation. Their remains have probably flipped over in their grave more than once recently.
Nope, no Cowboy Poetry Festival and I sure don't see it being included any time soon. LOL
I have read it all. Studied it all. Can we send a copy of this to every person on the "hill" to remind them of "their" duty to the citizens of the United States?
Thank you Frog. You have done it again, baby!
I agree with the Frog Princess. Send this brilliant piece of writing to Washington so that the fools we put there finally learn something. Voted up useful and awesome.
Up and awesome. This does need to go to Washington and should be required reading for all of our representatives.
Thanks for the reminder Frog. We may be okay as long as the states don't surrender their powers to congress and the feds leave it alone. Great writing.
Patsy - What a pleasure to see you!
Frog,
One of your best. I've always been frightened of excessive centralized power, and excessive individual power can lead to anarchy. We were truly intended to be a union of sovereign states, with division of power between the state and the people based on state culture. We now have an all-powerful federal government, that doesn't serve us, but rules us. It usurps power without abandon, and funds it on the backs of people not yet born. It imposes a sterile uniformity of culture across states in violation of agreements that were made to ensure state sovereignty, such as state determination of Senators, and state ratification of constitutional amendments (the latter being obviated in practice because the federal government routinely violates enumerated powers, skipping the necessary constitutional amendment process in the first place).
Were Jefferson or Madison to come back to life and see what we have today, they would jump back into their graves.
Stu
Froggy
One only has to turn to Wisconsin in order to view the aftermath of Federal Interference; just as the MODERN DAY FEDERALISTS stole Frankens Minn. Senate seat from the people so now those same Federalists are stealing the Supreme Court Justice seat from the people of Wisconsin!
Stu and Partisan Patriot - Please stay tuned for the entire series. I'm going somewhere with this history refresher class. Thanks for your comments.
The Frog
Awesome, awesome, awesome! So many people need this reminder-or for many, need to learn this for the first time. I'll be in your history class anytime, well done!
Up andmawesome Frog. This is what I'm talking about. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the beginning to remind everyone of the true history of The Constitution and how we enact bills and laws. I love this! It is a great history lesson. I am waiting for part 2!
I do a lot of 5th grade homework:). My daughter just had a test regarding The Tea Party. Can you believe that? I wondered how many folks really would be smarter than a 5th grader on that test!
Very interesting, I learned a thing or two from that great hub. It is a shame that many Americans forget about the principles that founded our nation and the types of people who established those principles.
RHW - Probably not too many. I believe you're referring to the Boston one? I hope so.
I attempted to write this so even a 5th grader could grasp it. Let me know!
T4HOTA - Thank you kind Sir. Refreshment of the memory can be a grand concept. Stay tuned and see you in the next class.
Unfortunately, when the liberal Supreme Courts granted Congress almost unlimited powers under the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, the Tenth Amendment lost much of its meaning.
It will now require a new amendment to limit the federal government power the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Oops thank you I left that critical word out? Ha! I did not sleep well last night:). I'll see if Sydney understands it and I will let you know her comments - that could be quite interesting!
"Keep in mind that this nation was created as a Republic, not a democracy. We are a Republic with democracy playing a role in our electoral processes." Great reminder.
THis entire hub was quite a lesson for me as I am just educating myself in politics over the last several months. Your political hubs are always very informative- you're a smart guy.
Fantastic! I am going to share with who ever I can. Maybe the ones that really need to read it will. Thank you for this great piece of writing
Tina
This is a great overview, and very well written. I found it helpful to be reminded of some of the facts. Thanks for writing it!
RH,
Edison is quoted as saying “Hell, there are no rules here—we’re trying to accomplish something.” He of course was referring to scientific inquiry.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, member of the House Rules Committee, "amended" Edison as follows: "I wish that I had been there when Thomas Edison made the remark that I think applies here: ‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along..."
Now you know "how we enact bills and laws."
Stu
I thought that's what the Pelosi lady meant when she said, "We'll just have to pass it and see what's in it' mumbo jumbo?
I really do think many of us need these lessons. I barely remember anything from my high school or college days. I think I just studied to get the grades and then sort of lost a lot of the information along the way.
RH,
Right, just two different ways to do the wrong thing (shove legislation down Congress's throats whether they like it or not).
Su
I am optimistic that folks like you are going to change that. And I think it's great to try to re-educate. I'm listening and I'll bet others are too Stu. I read this more than once. I don't want to flunk the quiz;)
There's going to be a quiz? Is Froggy catching some of Obummer's NPD? Maybe he needs to take a break from all this for a while. :)
Stu - yes my good sir. Look at the second to the last paragraph:-) I told you I read it more than once! LOL
Great hub! I wrote my state representative about two years ago regarding States' Rights and he informed me that the issue of States' Rights was settled during the Civil War (in other words, they have no rights).
No kidding! I still have the letter around here somewhere.
Needless to say, I was shocked at his response! That was when I stopped voting Republican and started voting Libertarian.
Mandrake - Thanks. History class will resume tomorrow. Another pressing issue had to supersede this time spot.
Check it out if you will.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Sitting-On-The-Sidelines
The Frog
OK, Froggy, You're on. I'll take the quiz.
Will also check out your new Hub.
Stu
Mandrake,
Your rep is on crack, from an ideological standpoint. What the Civil war resolved was that the states are not countries (they can't secede). But they are still sovereign. The US is a federation of sovereign states. The federal government has a right to exist, but it is mandated that it exercise no powers not explicitly inuring to it in the Constitution. At a pragmatic level, the only reasons states and the people have so few rights is because the feds illegally stole them, and the federal courts refuse to uphold the Tenth Amendment. Sadly, the position your rep is taking is highly reflective of most presidents, Congressmen, and judges.
Stu
Stu - Viola. The federal government exists because it is a creation of the individual states in the union. It may be best for people to start understanding that.
Stu - Viola. The federal government exists because it is a creation of the individual states in the union. It may be best for people to start understanding that.
Frog, exactly. And it is so sad that the federal government has forgotten that fact. All protections to preserve states' rights, and representation at the federal level, have been effectively decimated. The federal government was created to be a servant to the states and people in regard to a handful of enumerated responsibilities only the central government could manage. Instead it has become the very hydra-headed ruler the Founders fought so hard to extricate themselves from. Stu
I think our Founders were so smart. Now look what is happening. The individual states are 'checkmating', so to speak, the federal government:
“Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying Arizona's immigration law – the one the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states are working to halt the epidemic of "anchor babies" establishing "birthright citizenship." And 13 states are considering laws that would require every presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can be placed on that state's ballot in presidential elections.” From WND.com
Ms Dee,
This is just the start. Individual nullification is also possible. I'm hoping a wave of this clogs the courts, so they are forced to vacate unconstitutional laws and EO's. They won't do it for the right reason, but might just to keep their schedules free for golf, tennis, etc.
Stu
This history lesson will progress to these times Ms Dee.
BTW! Have you made your dinner reservations yet? Better hurry as the seating is limited. Use the link for a fine dining experience.
Limited seating event. Be quick or be hungry!
http://hubpages.com/hub/Would-You-Pay-38-500-To-Di
The Frog
Looking forward to reading it, TFP! :) And, Stu, so true. Yes, tyranny does not do it for the right reason, does it.
Ms Dee, nope, the only thing that does it is the hope of continued employment in Camelot.
The founding Fathers were not God, and all seeing and all knowing. They were imperfect men that could'nt imagine cars, planes,or the internet. The society of today can't be managed be men who only considered white men when they wrote that all men are created equal. States Rights would give every state the right to act independently and without the Federal Government to unite the United States of America. Does the constitution trump the Bible? Can the United States exist without a central government? Did not the civil war decide the issue of States Right?
Junko - Noce spin but your dice came up snake eyes. Read the Constitution son. It's as valid today as it was back then. The 10th wasn't adopted so the states are autonomous. It was adopted so that the federal government couldn't over reach into things NOT covered in the Constitution.
Keep something in mind here as we go along. The states created the union and the federal government, not the other way around. Study history more often.
Great reply, TFP! I admire your good facilitation of this discussion :) BTW, thanks for serving for our country in the Army.
Everything is not covered or considered in the constitution. There would be no united states without the Federal government. It's not as valid today as it was then, today we live in a diffrent reality hence amendments. The founding fathers knew as things change so should the constitution change and include the unincluded and things unforeseen. I'm considering the constitution, not just the tenth amentment. Ms Dee I served our country in the Marine Corps.
To junko, too, I give you my thanks for serving our country. I agree with what you say here about the constitution and amendments. I think TFP and I hold the view, though, that the current people in power on the federal level are including way more in their domain of power than the *principles* on which the constitution was founded would see as acceptable. Those principles still apply in today's reality.
The constitution was in existance during the previous Presidency, right? Just curious, I've seen a rebirth, and it has been revisited more in the last two years more than ever before by ordinary people.
The subject isn't yet to this or that administration junko and your argument about the passage of time doesn't hold water. Their are countries that modeled their constitutions by using ours. It is as relevant now as it was then.
I do suggest you read it and the way it functions, or is supposed to.
junko,
"The founding Fathers were not God, and all seeing and all knowing. They were imperfect men that could'nt imagine cars, planes,or the internet." - Perfectly true.
"The society of today can't be managed [by] men who only considered white men when they wrote that all men are created equal." - True. But keep in mind that slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment, and SE apartheid was abolished by federal nullification of state laws (the CRA). In other words, framer intent must be followed, but it can be updated using legal means (enactment of constitutional amendments and new federal code). Legal constructionism does not imply absolute homeostasis; it simply means that when society changes faster than law, you obey the old law (EXACTLY as it was originally intended) until Congress catches up by revising the law using LEGAL PROCESSES (rather than do what the federal government does and pretend framer intent was something other than what it actually was to achieve a desired "end result").
"States Rights would give every state the right to act independently and without the Federal Government to unite the United States of America." - Not true. The Constitution binds all states to the union, and subordinates state powers to those of the federal government SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY where the Constitution so provides. It was the INTENT of the Founders that the federal government be VERY SMALL, providing a FEW vital servives that the states and the people could not provide for themselves (national defense, giant infrastructure, etc.). The Founders wanted the VAST RESIDUE of powers to be shared between the states and the people, with the split determined by state culture (this is the concept of state sovereignty). The states are bound to the union, but THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CREATION OF THE STATES - THE STATES ARE NOT A CREATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
"Does the constitution trump the Bible?" The Bible is the moral basis for our national charter, the DOI. The DOI trumps our highest national by-laws (the Constitution), and the Constitution trumps all other code (federal, state, and municipal).
"Can the United States exist without a central government?" - No, it cannot. The Constitution recognizes the right of the federal government to exist. And it must exist to provide those FEW services the states and people cannot provide for themselves (but it should be 3-4% of the economy, not 25% as it is now). 90% of the federal government, and all associated agencies, laws, and executive orders, should be vacated and defunded. 90% of what is in DC should be in the 50 state capitols.
"Did not the civil war decide the issue of States Right[s]?" - The underlying split between federal and state powers was decided long before the Civil War. By seceding, the SE made the illegal decision that state sovereignty qualified states as "countries." The end result of the Civil War, in a pragmatic sense, bound the union back together, as is mandated by the Constitution.
Stu
Frog,
Excellent response to Junko. Please see mine above. I think it fleshes out your point nicely.
Stu
Ms Dee,
Frog is a great writer, but this is one of his best pieces. And yes, he's managing the discussion extremely well.
Stu
Stu - People sometimes miss the concept of the wise men who wrote the document including the words "limited" and "enumerated." That isn't outdated by anything that has to do with the passage of time.
The idea that they weren't very wise, smart men seems far fetched to me. They clearly understood the practical aspects of living under a tryant since they experienced it. These colonist were a tough, hardened breed who understood the concept of having to take care of themselves and their own business.
There was no Nanny to take care of their every need, only a far away tyrant who thought they could be ruled and brought to heel to do his bidding. I call it a softness that has been inbred into many generations now.
As I am fond of saying, "The Lord takes care of those who take care of themselves." I believe that the founders of this nation understood that clearly too. It hasn't changed over the centuries.
Part 2 is about to follow. This is going from then until now.
Stu, You, frog, and Ms. Dee seem to be reasonable conservatives. You all stated your opinions and beliefs and reasons for your positions without being uncivil. You all seem to agree and support each other, that,s American. I don't agree with all of your opinion, solutions, and justifications, but I enjoyed the discussion and respect your opinions because you stated reasonable justification for your views
junko - We aren't attack dogs. I write many controversial things, in my own style and get right to the point. Whenever I pen something I use facts and do a lot of research and reading so that I understand the subject.
I'm here, and other places, to inform people, if they care to be informed, about things you sure won't find out by watching or reading the lame stream media.
They can either read and discuss or move on. This particular series I am writing has to do with the 10th amendment in particular. It will go from then until now and I will attempt to illustrate along the way how it has evolved and been trampled on quite often along the way.
It's a lesson in history. By ignoring history we are prone to keep repeating the same mistakes. Stay tuned.
Part 1 was just laying the historical base, no more no less.
The Frog
Junko,
It is true that not everything is covered in the Constitution. The Constitution itself must comport with the DOI, as the DOI is superordinate to all other law. But all federal, state, and municipal code must comport with the Constitution, as it is higher in precedence.
You are right that there would be no United States without the federal governement. But the critical thing is that the federal government is SUBORDINATE to the Constitution (even though they don't act like they are).
The Constitution is every bit as valid, legally, today as it was when it was penned. In areas where its terms differ from those generally desired, it can be amended, but should not be disobeyed or "reinterpreted" at will. Amendment of the Constitition requires supermajority (2/3) approval of both houses of Congress, and supermajority (3/4) ratification by the 50 state legislatures. The Founders knew that the Constiution would need to change over time, but they purposely made the hurdle for change very high so the Constitution would have significant constancy.
Stu
Junko,
More people than ever are learning about the Constitution because the Obama Administration, and his toadies in Congress, are violating it at a level not seen since FDR. You are witnessing the emergence of the very tyranny the Constitution prevents, IF it is obeyed.
Stu
Great Hub...class is in session...will be sharing this with my oldest kiddos 15 and 17 who are on the right track and will enjoy and "get it"...Up,Useful,Awesome,Beautiful...
Frog University!
Hi Frog,
You are right that in a legal sense, enumerated powers is as alive today as it was over 200 years ago. By try explaining that to the federal government and liberals. Many liberals I've communicated with on SH see the Tenth Amendment as an outdated artifact of times gone by, like the Mann Act before it was repealed.
I agree the Founders were very wise, smart men, and did deeply understand what was needed to prevent tyranny. I simply agreed with Junko that like all humans, they had their imperfections.
The nanny-state idea has no analogue in the colonial days. The republicans, federalists, and tories were hardly progressives by today's definition.
Stu
Hi Junko,
Thanks for the kind words. Contrary to popular opinion, mainstream conservatives are not revolutionary posse types (right wing extremists). We simply believe in the rule of law, fiscal prudence, and pushing power down as low as feasible.
Best, Stu
Stu - I have the class prepared for Part 2 and will issue the lesson plan shortly. King George III wasn't known to be the colonists Nanny by any means. He was more intent on raping the resources of the colonies and leaving only pennies as the penance. Sound familiar?
Stu, you're welcome, that was my impression. Before I peek part2 I wanted your opinion on America before and for a while after the constitution was written. Did America start out as a socialistic society in order to survive and thrive. I didn't want to enter part2 with off topic questions. I have my beliefs,I wondered about yours.
junko - No, what they established was s republic that ran according to the Constitution. Socialism wasn't a concept that they brought over from England. They wanted their freedoms and fought to get them. History speaks for itself my friend.
O'k, Frog Thanks, I agree.
Froggie - Seems like there are lots of folks who like what you have to say here, and why not? Seems to me that it is pretty good stuff and it reminds me that 2012 is getting closer and closer.
Gus :-)))
Hi Junko,
America started out with a collection of people who emigrated from England, many to escape religious persecution. While the original colonists did include some Anglicans (members of the Church of England) who were not so persecuted, most were Roman Catholic or members of non-Anglican Protestant sects. Most of the original colonists were the exact opposite of socialists; they were trying to find freedom from the Monarchy in England and the institutions it used to persecute them. The British Crown was in substance a type of socialism, rigid top-down rule, with some moderating influences resulting from the existence of Parliament. England at the time was hybrid of Parliamentary Democracy and substantive socialist dictatoriship.
Taxation of the colonies without any representation in the British Parliament, as well as British attacks on colonial merchant vessels in retaliation for refusal to pay these taxes, resulted in secession (the DOI) and subsequent full scale attack by the British (the start of the Revolutionary War).
Stu
Thanks Stu, Frog gave me an answer earier and I agreed. After I post the question I realized, at that time Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism, weren't conceptionalized yet. (Big word) I'm hook on phonics,lol
OK Junko, YW, Stu
nicomp Level 6 Commenter 13 months ago
Great class. The Founding Fathers would throw up if they could see what we've done to their republic.
Harry Reid's interpretation of the Constitution is somewhat different than yours. Oddly enough, no Cowboy Poetry Festival is mentioned in the 10th amendment.