10th Amendment violations?

[Steelharp]

I need help from a knowledgeable source. That would be you guys. Have you, to your recollection, seen any actual, SPECIFIC 10th amendment violations by the current administration, or is it all just speculation and scare tactics? Not required to be firearm specific.

[Chucktshoes]

Federal raids and prosecution of marijuana dispensaries that are operating IAW state law. See California and Colorado for many, many examples.

[DaveTN]

Gun control (Not this administration)
Medical marijuana
Obama Care
Stopping states from enforcing immigration laws

[Oh Shoot]

I don't see how the marijuana is a 10th violation. There are federal laws against it. I mean, you can argue that those laws violate the 10th, but they've been on the books since the 40's. Plus, the feds ain't enforcing them much or at all.

Some of the federal interference with voter ID laws comes to mind, but in some of those cases a federal review was already mandated for any election changes, maybe all of them, so if so that wouldn't be a violation either.

I mean, you can blame lots of laws themselves for violating the 10th, but you can't blame the current admin for them. The main thing that has galled me is the selective law enforcement on any issue perceived to increase votes, especially the illegal alien area.

Another was the initial federal flack over Boeing moving part of the operation to non-union SC. Could see that as interference in SC's own economy. But they relented, so I guess turned out not to be a violation, just a hassle.

That presidential order to allow the x number of second gen illegals to get a pass could be seen to encroach on states' right methinks. If passed by Congress, okay, but here's a blanket de facto issuance of a type of amnesty so that states have no recourse but to accept, and of course it was done at a strategic time before the election to increase the hispanic vote.

Probably more that I'll think of.

- OS

[gregintenn]

[quote][indent]
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 people.[/indent]
[/quote]

ObamaCare would be the most glaring example. There are countless examples of other tent amendment violations that go on in perpituity, that were enacted before Obama, but continue to grow and thrive. Dept of Education, Homeland Security, FEMA, EPA, DHS, etc. If you actually read the constitution, the Federal Government is ennumerated very few and specific powers. As I see it, these include National Defense, Post Office, the Mint, Federal Law Enforcement and Courts, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.

[QuietDan]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1354468444' post='853806']
ObamaCare would be the most glaring example. There are countless examples of other tent amendment violations that go on in perpituity, that were enacted before Obama, but continue to grow and thrive. Dept of Education, Homeland Security, FEMA, EPA, DHS, etc. If you actually read the constitution, the Federal Government is ennumerated very few and specific powers. As I see it, these include National Defense, Post Office, the Mint, Federal Law Enforcement and Courts, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
[/quote]

One realistic and achievable change would be the various states convening a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th Amendement. With no income tax, the Federal Government would be cut off from one of its most intrusive sources of money.

Repealing the Federal Income Tax would significantly strangle the power of the Federal Government. It would have to be replaced with significantly higher State Income Taxes or other sources of revenue, but it would also make the Federal Government accountable to the States.

This one change, over which the Federal Government has no control whatsoever, would rapidly re-establish the 10th Amendment Sovereignty of the various States. The States decide to convene a Constitutional Convention and according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no role.

I'd rather petition for a Redress of Grievances to Nashville than to Washington D.C. At the very least, we can stand on the grounds of Legislative Plaza and the State Capitol and bully our legislators in person.

The [b]Sixteenth Amendment[/b] ([b]Amendment XVI[/b]) to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution"]United States Constitution[/url] allows the Congress to levy an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax"]income tax[/url] without apportioning it among [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state"]the states[/url] or basing it on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census"]Census[/url] results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax#U.S._constitutional_law_sense"]direct taxes[/url], after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co."]Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[/url][/i] (1895).

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution[/url] Edited December 2, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1354468444' post='853806']
ObamaCare would be the most glaring example. There are countless examples of other tent amendment violations that go on in perpituity, that were enacted before Obama, but continue to grow and thrive. Dept of Education, Homeland Security, FEMA, EPA, DHS, etc. If you actually read the constitution, the Federal Government is ennumerated very few and specific powers. As I see it, these include National Defense, Post Office, the Mint, Federal Law Enforcement and Courts, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
[/quote]Right on the money!

Enumerated powers are it. Those you mentioned, plus most of the other under the executive umbrella don't have a right to exist,
according to the Tenth Amendment.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1354469432' post='853810']
One realistic and achievable change would be the various states convening a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th Amendement. With no income tax, the Federal Government would be cut off from one of its most intrusive sources of money. It would significantly strangle the power of the Federal Government. It would have to be replaced with significantly higher State Income Taxes or other sources of revenue, but it would also make the Federal Government accountable to the states. I'd rather petition for a Redress of Grievances to Nashville than to Washington D.C. At the very least, we can stand on the grounds of Legislative Plaza and the State Capitol and bully our legislators in person.

The [b]Sixteenth Amendment[/b] ([b]Amendment XVI[/b]) to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution"]United States Constitution[/url] allows the Congress to levy an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax"]income tax[/url] without apportioning it among [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state"]the states[/url] or basing it on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census"]Census[/url] results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax#U.S._constitutional_law_sense"]direct taxes[/url], after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co."]Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[/url][/i] (1895).

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution[/url]
[/quote]Damn! I was just going to mention that, Dan. The daddy of all our problems.

[gregintenn]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1354469432' post='853810']
One realistic and achievable change would be the various states convening a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th Amendement. With no income tax, the Federal Government would be cut off from one of its most intrusive sources of money.

Repealing the Federal Income Tax would significantly strangle the power of the Federal Government. It would have to be replaced with significantly higher State Income Taxes or other sources of revenue, but it would also make the Federal Government accountable to the States.

This one change, over which the Federal Government has no control whatsoever, would rapidly re-establish the 10th Amendment Sovereignty of the various States. The States decide to convene a Constitutional Convention and accoring to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no role.

I'd rather petition for a Redress of Grievances to Nashville than to Washington D.C. At the very least, we can stand on the grounds of Legislative Plaza and the State Capitol and bully our legislators in person.

The [b]Sixteenth Amendment[/b] ([b]Amendment XVI[/b]) to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution"]United States Constitution[/url] allows the Congress to levy an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax"]income tax[/url] without apportioning it among [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state"]the states[/url] or basing it on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census"]Census[/url] results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax#U.S._constitutional_law_sense"]direct taxes[/url], after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co."]Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[/url][/i] (1895).

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution[/url]
[/quote]

Your proposal makes a lot more sense than seccession petitions.

[seez52]

Somebody post it up, I'll sign it!

[Chucktshoes]

The idea of a constitutional convention scares the crap out of me. I have no doubt that it would go in the exact opposite direction any of us here would want to see. I think Bracken's description in the Enemies Trilogy of a CC hijacked and gone awry would be a far more likely outcome.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm reading that first one, right now. Pretty interesting stuff going on. And he is plausible.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Well, it started with Lincoln. After the "Civil" War, the so called "State's Rights" have been ever and ever limited and constrained.

The SCOTUS has not overturned very many Fed laws due to 10th A violations. And did not rule so with Obama Care (Mitt Care, nationwide.) I think they may have overturned 2 laws for such in the last 60 years?

[strickj]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1354381019' post='853390']
Gun control (Not this administration)
Medical marijuana
Obama Care
Stopping states from enforcing immigration laws
[/quote]

I see the violations with marijuana and gun control.
The rest of the violations (not just the other two mentioned in this post) are not exactly violations. The states allow the feds to do them which knocks the 10th out of the equation. Even when a state resists initially, they still buckle in the end.

[Guest PapaB]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1354478064' post='853859']
The idea of a constitutional convention scares the crap out of me. I have no doubt that it would go in the exact opposite direction any of us here would want to see. I think Bracken's description in the Enemies Trilogy of a CC hijacked and gone awry would be a far more likely outcome.
[/quote]

I agree. A lot of people don't realize that you can't limit the scope of a constitutional convention. Your opponents could cause more harm to the constitution if they get organized and we could wind up with a country that looks nothing like what the founders envisioned.

As to the original question, suits against the states on voter id laws and immigration are the most blatant. Edited December 4, 2012 by PapaB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1354478064' post='853859']
The idea of a constitutional convention scares the crap out of me. I have no doubt that it would go in the exact opposite direction any of us here would want to see. I think Bracken's description in the Enemies Trilogy of a CC hijacked and gone awry would be a far more likely outcome.
[/quote]Finished it last night and a CC is bothersome. Glad that book had a decent ending. A bunch of it was too close to home.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1354632791' post='854729']Finished it last night and a CC is bothersome. Glad that book had a decent ending. A bunch of it was too close to home.[/quote]
Just wait until you finish the rest of the trilogy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm getting the others today. He's a pretty good writer, to boot! Builds characters well.

That one sure made me leary of Memphis. I'm sure you're more confident, aren't you? phew!

I have Kindle for PC, but it is going to be book form or going to my little Kindle next time. My PC
is on my gun bench right now, and sitting on a stool reading that book was a bit of work. Edited December 4, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Commando68]

[sup][quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1354633820' post='854738']
I'm getting the others today. He's a pretty good writer, to boot! Builds characters well.

That one sure made me leary of Memphis. I'm sure you're more confident, aren't you? phew!

I have Kindle for PC, but it is going to be book form or going to my little Kindle next time. My PC
is on my gun bench right now, and sitting on a stool reading that book was a bit of work.
[/quote][/sup]
[sup]They are great books. If you like the trilogy you will love Boston Tea Party, aka Kenneth Royce. Check out "Molon Labe".[/sup]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thank you!