MOUNT VERNON — Two groups are working to meet a June 30 deadline for collecting enough signatures to place two constitutional amendments on the November ballot.



Joshua Morrison: 740-397-5333 or and on Twitter, @


Rules: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don’t attack other commenters personally and keep your language decent. If a comment violates our comments standards, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report abuse. To post comments, you must be a Facebook member.

25 Responses to “Groups hope to put amendments on November ballot”

  1. M. Baker

    “liberalism is a mental disorder”, I have read your comment tonight and I will be happy to address it tomarrow, without adding the disparaging comments you seem to be incapable of avoiding. Again, keep in mind, this is not a liberal or consevative issue and disparaging comments are unnecessary in an intelligent debate. Unless you are single minded and incapable of acknowledging that your opinion may not necessarily be the interpetation of the Constitution as written, or that the Supreme Court is not the final interpetation and law of the land, then there is no need to continue this debate. Before I do reply, I want you to state that your interpetation may not be the correct interpetation, and that the Supreme Court has the final say on interpetation of the Constitution which is the final law of the land.

  2. liberalism is a mental disorder

    M. Baker
    first off on June 21st at 1:09pm you stated “The 10 admendment only states that the powers the Federal government choses not to exercise shall be delegated to the States.” That statement is absolutely incorrect. I am not even sure how you came up with it. The only thing I can even blame it on is your disorder (liberalism). This is the correct tenth amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states respectively, or to the people. I myself would see this one sentence as simple. Just for you though im gonna take it apart stupid style so that you may understand. lets take the first few words ” the powers not delegated by the United States” the key word here is “delegated”. Delegated means to give to or to assign. In other words the powers not “given or assigned to” to the United States. The next part is “by the constitution or prohibited by it” ( if you need help with this part please slap youself for me). After rereading your comments I think ill break that down also. The constitution is the framework of our government, it sets fourth rights and limitations on the government and protects the people from tyranny, or tries to until certian people misundertand simple sentences.Prohibited means to forbid or prevent. The rest of the sentence is easy the words are small just sound them out if need be.
    Now we have the same amendment that is in a little different language ” The powers not [given or assigned] to the United States, by the Constitution, nor [prevented or forbidden] by it (“it” meaning the constitution) to the states respectively, or to the people. Where you came up with the powers the federal government chose not to exercise is beyond me. As for no rebuttle the amendment itself is a rebuttle. There were plenty of good questions asked, which you chose not to answer examples being. 1)Why would the founders even add the tenth amendment if they knew the federal government could just trample it. 2)Why would they give states rights at all, or even people rights for that matter if they thought it was ok via the supremacy clause to do whatever the heck crossed their mind.I dare you to find one quote where any founder was in want of a all powerful federal government. Which is exactly what you would have if you ignored this amendment. You will not find one. The great men who put up the framework did everything in their power to prevent it. By not following the rules set fourth by the consitution and by misunderstanding the context in which certian things where wrote is exactly how we got to the mess we are in now.

    just as you say “what is amazing to me is that the focus for some of you is soley on the 10th amendment. One can not focus on only one amendment to get the whole picture.” One can truly not get the whole picture by just focusing one one clause.You must read history and understand the context in which the founders lived and suffered by the hands of a all powerful government. The book Lives of the Signers is a great starting book its a 1848 reprint and it used to be a school textbook and i wish it still was. What you are stating is that one clause can infringe upon the whole constitution. I will not argue the courts will rule one way or another. Everyone knows the courts have been screwed up for ages. A interesting book in which I suggest you read detailing how and when the courts went wrong is called Men in Black.

  3. M. Baker

    Alumni, I went back and did a review of what your source ( had to say about Wikipedia, and I didn’t find anything unusal. They actually refered to Wiki in several of their articals when citing their background material. The Wikipedia provides citations of their sources, so if you want to review the accuracy of a statement, you can go back to the source they sited and decide for yourself.

  4. M. Baker

    Alumni, so let me get this straight, you get your news from mainly one obvious right wing journalist or source, and you think you are getting the full story. Beside that, what does have to do with the 10th admendment? Where someone gets their news has nothing to do with what a historical document states.

  5. Alumni

    Dear M. Baker, Commentary reading regarding Wiki may be found at Then look for the search tab and type in “Wikipedia”.
    Turn off the controled mainstream news and listen to Jone’s program on the internet. You might even find an archive stream on the subject.

  6. seriously

    what is amazing to me is that the focus for some of you is soley on the 10th amendment. One can not focus on only one amendment to get the whole picture. there are hundreds of court cases and thousands of laws the complete the picture.

    if you believe in cutting federal taxes and cutting spending. Ohio get around 20 Billion in federal dollars every year. Can we have it back? maybe we could spend it in some states that want the money.

  7. Knoxcat

    I would say the Seriously did make a good argument about the import of the 10 amendment. Most legal scholars although by no means all, see the 10th amendment as adding nothing that was already in the Constitution itself.

  8. M. Baker

    Alumni, until you can come back with facts to support your baseless statements, don’t even bother posting and leaving your snide remarks.

  9. M. Baker

    Hearing the comments from “alumni”, “GL”, and “Liberal is a mental disorder”, reminds me of when I was in junior high school and the remarks kids would make to other kids.

  10. M. Baker

    Alumni, you too have not submitted any rebuttle to what has been stated previously, nor have you pointed out why Wiki is not reliable. You have been given the opportunity to make your case on the 10th Admendment, but instead you’ve only made negitive comments that are not back up with any facts which only demonstrates you have none or you would have stated them.

  11. Alumni

    Dear M. Baker, If you beleive Wiki to be a reliable source of fact then I will assume that you still place your lost teeth under your pillow.

  12. liberalism is a mental disorder

    Wikopedia as a viable source of historical information? Thats failure at its best. Try reading the founders own words on the matter.

  13. M. Baker

    I find it interesting, I and others have presented what is in fact written in the 10th Admendment, which you can read youself and verify, but those who disagree have not presented any rebuttle what so ever, chose instead to just disparage those who they think are “liberals”. The 10 admendment is not a liberal or a conservative issue. The interpetation of the 10 Admendment by the Supreme Court, has always followed what the admendment so clearly states. By the way “Liberism is a mental disorder”, the Supreme court is spelled S-u-p-r-e-m-e. “GL” you also need to read the 10th Admendment, apparently someone has given you the bad information. I am also interested to know after you both read the admendment, your interpetation. I’ll be waiting.

  14. liberalism is a mental disorder

    typical liberal comeback void of any coherent argument. If by “greatest legal minds” you mean the best at hiding the underlying movitives for their deceitful actions then you are correct sir.

  15. GL

    I guess you have to be as dumb as some of the greatest legal minds in the history of this country. Yup.

  16. John C. Davidson

    What bothers me the most about all these statements is that no longer should anyone question what is going on in their country. What ever happened to an individuals right to question what our government does. Let the process procede unheeded so maybe the next time something happens to you, maybe you still have a right to question it.

  17. liberalism is a mental disorder

    You have to be kidding me. How dumb do you have to be to think the The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power to mandate upon every citizen anything that clearly takes preference to a certian population of people while simultaneously expending the majorities personal wealth and private property. Its just common sense which you clearly lack. Why would the founders even add the tenth amendment if they knew the federal government could just trample it. Why would they give states rights at all, or even people rights for that matter if they thought it was ok via the supremacy clause to do whatever the heck crossed their mind. It truly is sad how far some people in this country have been desensitized of the founders true meaning and values.

  18. M. Baker

    Alumni, first, read the first paragraph of the admendment, and if your still confused, go to Wikopedia for a complete explaination of the admendment.

  19. seriously

    so you want us to read the 10th amendment. Fine. But you are forgetting one major part of the Constitution.

    The Supremacy Clause – which states in article VI clause II that: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    In 1982 – the Supreme Court found in the case of Edgar vs Mite Corporation that the supremacy clause goes into effect when either of the two following scenarios occor:
    1:Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible
    2..state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..

    Even if these do pass, which i doubt they will, both laws would be thrown out in federal court and never make it to the supreme court.

  20. Alumni

    Dear M Baker,
    Please direct my attention to the portion of the amendment which supports your claim advanced in your second sentence.

    “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.”

  21. M. Baker

    Jacob is correct. The Federal goverment supercedes State government in all cases, even if these two Admendments should pass. The 10 admendment only states that the powers the Federal government choses not to exercise shall be delegated to the States. Alumni, you need to read the 10th Admendment, not Jacob. The Supreme Court has also consistanly upheld this right of the Federal government.

  22. Sam

    I’m not sure if I should laugh or get angry!
    Laugh because I agree with Ed, we fought this little war almost 150 years ago that laid the foundation for the resolution of issue of states rights.
    Or get angry at what a waste of tax payer money this will be as all that will happen is appeal upon appeal upon appeal until they hit the US Supreme Court and then get over turned. I’d rather see money spent on education, elder care, jobs creating, etc!

  23. Alumni

    Jacob, Please carefully and slowly read the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution.

  24. Ed

    Just a question…didn’t we fight a bloody Civil War about “States’ Rights”?

  25. Jacob

    And this is the problem with the free-for-all system we have in the state of Ohio for amending the state constitution: any uninformed idiot can put together a string of incoherent babble that would not withstand federal court scrutiny. As long as that string of incoherent babble sounds good to some people, it can be enacted. At that point, the state constitution has been junked up with language that violates the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing that already-limited public money be spent on inevitable court challenges.