Comments on: Groups hope to put amendments on November ballot

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:33:17 +0000

“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.

By: liberalism is a mental disorder

liberalism is a mental disorder — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:24:33 +0000

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.

seriously
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.

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:06:01 +0000

Alumni, I went back and did a review of what your source (www.infowars.com) 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.

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:47:39 +0000

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 http://www.infoswar.com have to do with the 10th admendment? Where someone gets their news has nothing to do with what a historical document states.

By: Alumni

Alumni — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:21:17 +0000

Dear M. Baker, Commentary reading regarding Wiki may be found at http://www.infowars.com. 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.

By: seriously

seriously — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:24:10 +0000

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.

By: Knoxcat

Knoxcat — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:37:58 +0000

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.

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:29:48 +0000

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

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:36:10 +0000

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.

By: M. Baker

M. Baker — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:30:16 +0000

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.