Bill Carns of Top Shot's WED radio show...

[simmonsjoe]

I e-mailed Bill a question about the 10A. He will be covering it tomorrow.
It will be streaming live 10-11:00am Central time.
If you miss it, check the archives later in the day.

---------my email -------------
I keep reading the 10th amendment, and I am greatly confused. I keep hearing, the BOR only limits the Federal Gov't. On a logical level, I simply don't believe it.

10A: "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."

Why would you need to 'restrict' federal power at all? It has absolutely nothing but what the States agree to delegate in order to be a member of the Union. You cannot delegate a power you do not possess.

If it is true that the BOR only effects the Federal Gov't, then the whole issue of 'incorporation' becomes a huge quandary to me.
If the 2A is incorporated against the States, then they no longer have the authority to delegate powers over bearing arms to the Fed. That would mean the incorporation of the 2A would be invalid. It's like dividing by zero, (which only Chuck Norris can do.)

So I am left with the conclusion that the whole issue about restricting the Fed govt is a scam. It implies the Fed govt can do anything not restricted to it. Have we been duped?

Obviously this disagrees with common wisdom. Where am I going wrong here? How is it possible for the constitution to restrict the Fed gov't, and have the Fed gov't dictate powers to the states, given the 10th amendment?

To me the 10A disproves almost all of the bullshit we hear about state/federal interaction, and how power is distributed. Then again I don't know the historical information regarding how this was intended when written. I would really appreciate if you could cover this on air[...]

Thanks,
---------------------------------

 

[sonoran_Tj]

The 10a was originally intended to keep the Federal government from influencing anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. Granted the Federal government didn't actually follow this amendment, as they had already implemented the First Bank of the U.S.; and did not get rid of it when the 10a was passed. Ever since then, the Federal government has done whatever it wants, and no one has sued them all the way to the supreme court to get a ruling on it's constitutionality. Basically, the 10a only counts in philosophy, not in practice.

This is just my take on it; and I'm just an 18 yo kid who took a government class in High School.

 

[rodbender]

10A: "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."

Art.I, Sec8 tells what is delegated to the feds by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not say the feds can do it, then they can't.

Art. I, Sec. 10 says what the states can not do.

If the Constitution does not say the states can not do it then they can. The states can do anything that they want as long as Art.I, Sec.10 does not prohibit it. Some states even had state sponsored religions after the ratification. Notice I said STATE sponsored, not federally sponsored.

Art.I, Sec.8. says what the feds can do and that is all they can do. Well, that's the way it is suppose to be. But the Constitution is little more than toilet paper to the politicians in D.C. anymore.

The states do not delegate powers to the feds.

Incorporation is not what 14A was all about. It was meant to protect mostly freedmen, AKA former slaves. The southern states were denying the RTKBA, property rights, access to the courts and all kinds of stuff to former slaves. The 14th Amendment was only to say that states could not have one set of laws for one group and another set for other groups. Incorporation was one of those things that was interpretted into the Constitution by SCOTUS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution. You must go back to the framers to see what their intent was. That is all the interpretation one needs on the Constitution. Words in the Constitution mean today something other than what they meant in 1787.

Example: The most common meaning of regulate today is "to control". The most common meaning in 1787 was "to make regular or to make even".

In 2A it means to make even as in evenly trained or well trained.

In Art. I, Sec. 8. It means to make even or to make regular.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Is the Constitution not a form of contract between states and the US? The Constitution has no power on its own. It is simply a piece of paper. The power comes from those states who joined the Union.

To me, I feel like saying the source of the delegated powers is the Constitution, is the same argument as the Constitution granting us rights.

 

[rodbender]

Actually the Constitution does delegate the powers to the feds. It's not the same as our rights which have always been there. The Constitution reaffirms these rights while it spells out the powers that the 13 original states gave the feds when they ratified the Constitution.

 

[simmonsjoe]

I understand from re-listening to the first 10 minutes of that show, which I missed.

Thanks for your help rodbender.