Why a Tenth Amendment?
20. Apr, 2009 
33 Comments
by Rob Natelson
In an earlier post, I wrote that the Tenth Amendment was adopted to reinforce the legal interpretation rule providing that if you list some items in a document, this implies that other items are excluded. The Tenth Amendment clarified that the federal government enjoyed only the powers listed in the Constitution and no others.
But why should anyone think there were others? Especially if there was a legal rule of interpretation to the contrary?
The answer to that question takes us to a story known to very few – even to very few constitutional scholars.
Throughout the period of the Continental and Confederation Congresses (1776-1788), advocates of a strong central government argued that, in addition to whatever express powers Congress had received from the states, Congress also enjoyed additional “inherent sovereign authority.” This theory would allow Congress to exercise many powers not on the list granted by the Articles of Confederation.
During this period, the “inherent sovereign authority” argument was made by John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Hartford Convention of 1780. They argued that Congress necessarily had inherent sovereign authority because it was America’s agent for foreign affairs. They sometimes argued that the British Crown conveyed inherent sovereign authority to Congress by the 1783 peace treaty recognizing independence.
The best-known exposition of inherent sovereign authority appeared in James Wilson’s Considerations on the Bank of North America. Wilson’s purpose in composing this paper was to justify Congress’s decision to charter a national bank, even though the Articles of Confederation had given Congress no such power.
Opponents of the Constitution admitted that the Constitution enumerated federal powers, but they feared that Wilson & Company might raise the same “inherent sovereign authority” claim again. Accordingly, most of the states demanded a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution. That amendment became the Tenth.
What is particularly surprising in light of this history and the Tenth Amendment’s explicit wording, is that some people still argued that the federal government had a vast reservoir of “inherent sovereign authority.”
The subject came up in a 1907 case (Kansas v. Colorado), but the Supreme Court rejected the idea, citing the Tenth Amendment. But the Court used the theory in a 1936 (U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright) to justify federal foreign affairs powers. And a majority of the court seems to have endorsed it in a 2004 case (U.S. v. Lara) explaining federal power over the Indian tribes.
But as a matter of history and constitutional text, there is no real doubt that the Tenth Amendment rendered the theory of “implied sovereign authority” completely illegitimate.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history. He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Professor Natelson,
Excellent article, thanks.
I think we, the people, must answer some constitutional questions for ourselves. Probably the foremost question is who is obligated to enforce the Law of the Constitution and by what constitutional power?
Professor Natelson said it correctly; (but in my words) the Tenth Amendment negates (makes null and void) anything NOT written in the Constitution.
Then Article V forbids Congress (with legislation or any method) and the Supreme Court (with decisions, or any method) to amend the Constitution.
In the same line of thought whatever Jefferson, Madison, Adams, or Anyone else said that is not written in the Constitution is not part of the Constitution and therefore not a law.
Point being, what is the Enforcer of the Constitution to enforce, legislation, Supreme Court decisions, what someone said, or what is written in the Constitution?
Allan
Thank you for citing the specificity of the Tenth Amendment; there is no wormhole, as in the second, ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary- -’ assumed that the state militia would be an ongoing fixture, that all fit males between the ages of 17 and 45 would, by law, equip themselves with a ‘military musket’ of current usage, and be organized according to requirements set forth in the state Statute and by the governor, through the adjutant general – - – the Dick act stripped the states of their militias and turned those militias into an army reserve, de jure, and called it ‘National Guard’; no militia, no requirement for the fit males to provide themselves in arms, so let’s just disarm the vitims, whaddyasay?
While I agree with Prof. Netelson’s article, I don’t agree with his statements to Dori Monson criticizing Governor Perry’s allusions to secession. Why is everyone, including those who support the Constitution, so afraid of the S word? I agree with Thomas Jefferson that secession should be the last resort; but it is just that–a resort. Jefferson also made it clear in the Declaration that the people have a right to throw off the chains of an oppressive government, and to form a new one. Was the government of the King any more oppressive than the one we have now? I live in Alabama, and I would love it if the South seceded again. Maybe Governor Perry should lead the way. The true patriot’s loyalty should always be to the Declaration and Constitution FIRST, and to the present form of the Union only as long as it is loyal to those two documents.
Great article. We need to elect representatives that understand and will adhere to the contitution. The founders debated many aspects of the constitution and it gives us context to what they were thinking not a way to avoid the amendments we don’t agree with. Texas is leading a charge that will become bigger. Governor Perry is slightly ahead of the curve. The federal government will do things that will continue to strengthen the argument for the “S” word…
We need People that understand the Constitution because it is the People’s obligation to enforce the law of the Constitution on government elected Officials.
The Constitution says (implies) in writing in Article I, Section 2, that the people have the Right, power, and authority to throw off government by simply voting to not reelect Incumbents.
No need to resort to, or advocate, Jefferson’s armed revolt – no need shooting Lawmakers when they can be voted out of office. Besides shooting people is a crime and voting is not a crime.
If you don’t like what government is doing then register to vote and vote for anyone but the Incumbent. Griping will not control government.
Allan
Dear Rob,
I am a lawyer and am explaining The US Constitution at the TCOT Constitution Classroom.
Please give me the source of your quote from Thomas Jefferson. Madison & Hamilton make the same point in The Federalist Papers, and I would also like a documented quote from Jefferson.
All of you, please come visit me at The TCOT Constitution Classroom. It’s a ning site, and one has to join to get inside; but I have posted articles on The Constitution which are documented and so easy to understand that you could make mincemeat of any statist judge or anybody else with complete confidence.
In my article on Religious Freedom, I quote from the General Assembly of Virginia on June 26, 1788 when they ratified the U.S. Constitution where they said, “…that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression….”
Secession is not lawlessness – it is the ultimate check on a lawless federal government. And our federal government is now completely illegitimate and lawless.
http://tcotprojects.ning.com/group/constitutionclassroom
I know more about the Constitution that I do about computers so if this link doesn’t work for you, email me and I can email a formal invitation from the TCOT site.
Thanks, PH
According to the rulings of the Supreme Court, there goes the neighborhood!
As the Tenth Amendment limits the fed, then these same precedents should also ‘limit’ the Supreme Courts rulings.
Irrespective, it should be noted that so far no one has offered any challenge to the Supreme Court, nor those who sit thereon…?
What I see is a body insulated from the people, including representatives, that desperately need to be reintroduced to functional government.
I believe it is the people’s responsibility to do so, whatever it takes!
The yuppies who showed up at the Tea Parties were a joke! No form of social intercourse is heard, let alone acted upon, without some level of real fear! These people didn’t even forcibly turn off the lights!
So here we go again…
We need a national campaign for legal redress of the intended destruction of The Constitutional foundation of our country!
Any lawyers, richies, people with real attitude problems about this?
Or is this just a useless accademic outing?
I hate to bust all these bubbles, BUT…
Inherent Sovereign Authority is exactly the same thing as an Unfunded Mandate! As in thou shalt, or shalt not, as the case may be…
I doubt anyone has ever offered a direct legal challenge to the Supreme Courts validity to sit…! However, there are certain legalities that all have overlooked.
In addition, States Rights does give the several states the right to reform our government at any time it fails to use its powers to enhance the lives of the people.
So where is a lawyer? Where is the wealthy person (able to fund this) who has been stepped on by the fed?
Anyone?
Congress can remove a Judge for as little as bad behavior; reference Article I, Section 4, and Article III, Section 1.
And the People can remover, via the ballot box, Congress critters every two years for as little dishonoring the Oath of Office and no lawyer needed.
You mentioned the Constitution, don’t you know you, the citizenry, not government or lawyers, are obligated to enforce it.
Quit whining and vote to not reelect your Incumbent Congressman in 2010.
Allan
Specifically, Congress may impeach judges for usurpations of power. See, The Federalist Papers, No. 81, Para 9 (A. Hamilton). This is on-line.
If people who honored the Constitution took over the House & the Senate, they could impeach & remove from office every single federal judge in this country who has usurped powers. They could also bar them from ever holding office again in the federal system. We could have a lawful, peaceful, bloodless revolution & restore our constitutional republic.
Please come to my TCOT Constitutional Classroom and I will turn you into experts in the U.S. Constitution. You will be able to amaze your friends & confound your enemies.PH
Whne the States need money to declare disaster to whom do they turn. When the States want money to build roads to whom do they turn. When grant money is given to State agencies, from who does it come. Federalizing would only simplify the process. Obama could manage how the money is being spent and ensure that it all goes to good causes.
To CommunalProsperity: You’re kidding, right?
My dear “CommunalProsperity”! You are in dire need of help which I [this is your lucky day!} am equipped to give you.
Allow me to teach you the U.S. Constitution. Let this be the year when you open your mind to explore the beauties of one of the most glorious documents of Liberty ever written. Come to the TCOT Constitution Classroom. [See link in my post above. If that doesn't work, post here & we'll see what we can do to get you there.]
For now: It is not the federal government’s job to distribute funds taken by force from one group of people to relieve any type of distress suffered by another group of people. The federal government has no authority under The Constitution to get involved in local disasters, local road building, or bestowing grant money to state agencies!
“Federal” refers to the form of our national government: An alliance of States with close cultural and economic ties associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.
And just who, pray tell, determines which causes are “good”? Here you illustrate the difference between The Rule of Law and The Rule of Men. In a nation governed by the Rule of Law, the Constitution determines how the government may spend money. In a nation under the Rule of Men, the men in power determine how money is spent according to their own whims & agenda.
With all due respect which I owe to you as a fellow human being who is made in the image of God, your comment reveals a profound ignorance. Allow me to lift you out of the darkness! PH
I made my daily check of this site and after perusing the post by CommunalProsperity I just had to comment. I’m certain that this person is a concerned red-blooded American or he/she would not be on site in the first place. EDUCATION is the FOUNDATION of a truly free society! What this person believes is ,sadly, what many too many of our elected officials believe within city, county, state and federal government! Had our educational system not been “gradually” infiltrated by subtle enemy agents who “softened the curriculum” as per their Goal#17 (See: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1963 COMMUNIST GOALS) then many of these people would have had a good educational foundation in American history and the U.S. Constitution! We are now standing at the precipice of Constitutional annihilation because of MAJORITY lack of education! Hosea 4:6 “MY PEOPLE PERISH FOR THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE”!
@ Publius/Huldah :
What are your thoughts on changing the Commerce Clause to read;
“The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate _THE_MANNER_OF_ commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states…”?
The insertion is “the manner of”.
I think this would have a profound effect on limiting the influence of the Federal Government in the affairs of the States.
Hi, Jon!
The problem isn’t in the wording of our Constitution. The problem is that the judges perverted our Constitution, and the lawyers let them get away with it.
The “interstate commerce” clause is one of the clauses which has been perverted to bring about a result opposite from what was originally intended.
The Federalist Papers is THE authoritative commentary for ascertaining original intent. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay wrote those 85 papers in order to explain the proposed Constitution to induce the states to ratify it.
In The Federalist Papers, No. 42 (paragraphs 11 & 12), James Madison explained the purpose of the commerce clause: It is to prohibit the states from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the states for purposes of buying and selling.
Alexander Hamilton gave the example of Germany where so many duties were levied on the merchandizes as they passed through the territories of the various German princes that “the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered are rendered almost useless.” The Federalist Papers, No. 22, paras 2-4.
Madison & Hamilton thus establish the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause. Until FDR’s “New Deal”, this was widely understood. Since then, the court has asserted that Congress can regulate “anything” which “affects” commerce. So, if you grow grain on your own farm for your own cows and your own family, you are “affecting” interstate commerce because if you didn’t grow it at home, you would buy it on the open market, and since you didn’t buy it on the open market, you “affected” interstate commerce! See?! So they claimed Congress can regulate your grain growing at home under the “interstate commerce” clause.
Hamilton shows that Congress may impeach & remove judges who usurp powers. (The Federalist papers, No. 81, para 9). Now, all we need are Representatives & Senators with guts.
In United States v. Lopez, Justice Clarence Thomas (my favorite Judge) explains the original intent of the “interstate commerce clause”. Justice Thomas’s opinion shows why those disposed to usurp powers attack him so virulently.
Come to the TCOT Constitution Classroom! I can turn you into an expert in the Constitution! You will be able to debate and make mincemeat out of anybody who perverts our Constitution. You would be performing a valuable service for your country, for our posterity AND, you’d have fun as well. PH
Thanks for the reply.
I was aware of how the CC had been abused and misinterpreted.
My line of thought with an Amendment would be to clarify and solidify the intent of the CC and prevent future presidents from intimidating the SC and to prevent that warped interpretation from continuing as a precedent.
I figure that even if we (this generation) gets tough and elects reps with the guts to affirm SC judges who will reverse that situation, then we still leave future generations at risk of having _that_ decision reversed via the manipulations of a future charismatic or powerful leader.
My intent is to provide a more permanent solution that is not so easily undone.
I think that the ‘Central Goverment’ control is so entrenched in DC now that it would take a Congress of super-humans to reverse the direction. So I’m hoping that an Amendment would make such over-reaches impossible, as they were before that fateful SC decision.
As a mental exercise, I spent a day going through the list of FedGov programs listed at Cato and I considered which ones would be eliminated if such an Amendment to the Commerce Clause were approved. It would remove the authority of the FedGov in a *huge* number of organizations and programs. That would be very good for the country, I think.
Jon, The problem isn’t with the wording of our Constitution. The original intent is clear & easily learned from The Federalist Papers. Nor is the problem caused solely by usurping presidents. Our problem can’t be fixed by “clarifying” The Constitution – it is already clear!
The problem is the philosophy which has taken over our Land. We abandoned the concept of “original intent”, and embraced the notion that the Constitution “evolves” to meet the conditions of the time. So it “means” whatever the people in power say it means, whether they be presidents, or judges, or representatives or senators. This is a problem which no amendments or clarifications can fix.
Have a look at Art I, §8, U.S. Constitution and see which federal agencies & programs which would be eliminated if Congress were restricted to its constitutional powers!
I wish you would come to the TCOT Constitutional Classroom! I posted an article there showing how the US Supreme Court lied when it prohibited the free exercise of religion and abridged the freedom of religious speech in these United States.PH
Publius – some important points you’ve made, thank you.
Also wanted to make note that although “original intent” is an important part of the study of the constitution – even more important would be “original meaning” and “original understanding”, with the latter often being cited by academics as most important.
This is the view that it is the understanding of the people, who, through their state ratifying conventions, actually gave the constitution the force of law. Thus, it’s not the intent of one founding father or another that should guide us in our understanding of the constitution, but rather, how those who ratified it understood it. In fact, there’s a much stronger consensus, especially in the realm of limited powers, when approaching it from this direction.
Intent of a Founder and Founders quotes are often misleading to the words and intent of the Constitution. Many of the Founders did not like the final draft of the Constitution ……..until they studied it.
As far as the people are concerned with the Constitution and involvement with government Article I, Sections 1 & 2 are the most important. The remainder of the Constitution the people gave consent to government to take care of it.
The Amendments of the Bill of Rights were not necessary and would only be a point of contention.
Allan
Thank you, Michael!
1. “Original intent”, “originalist”, “original understanding”, “original meaning”, “strict constructionist”, etc. are synonymous terms for the same concept: That the Constitution has a fixed meaning, and that such meaning was fixed at the time it was ratified.
2. The Federalist Papers are THE DEFINITIVE AUTHORITY on setting forth this original intent. These 85 Papers were written for & to The People to explain the proposed Constitution to them to induce them to get their States to ratify it. It is this Fact which elevates The Federalist Papers to their lofty status,along with The Declaration of Independence & The U.S. Constitution, as one of the three most important documents of our country, and which makes them The Definitive Authority as to the “genuine” meaning of The Constitution.
So the Federalist Papers are not mere expressions of the understandings of 3 of our Founders. Rather, they are THE Definitive Explanations of our Constitution!
Allan:
1. Would you rephrase your first two paragraphs – I’m missing your points.
2. But as to your last paragraph: Yes! Alexander Hamilton warned that Bills of Rights were not only unnecessary but would even be dangerous – See Federalist Papers, No. 84, Paragraph 10.
And in my ReligiousFreedom5.doc posted on TCOT Constitution Classroom, I show how the U.S. Supreme Court used the First Amendment to prohibit the free exercise of religion & to abridge the freedom of religious speech.
Alexander Hamilton was a prophet as well as a political genius. PH
P – With all due respect, original intent, understanding and meaning are three entirely different things.
Original Intent - refers to the actual intention of the founders themselves, such as what James Madison intended for something to mean in the constitution when he drafted it.
Original Understanding – refers to the general understanding of the people….what they thought that the constitution meant. This is best studied and explored through the state ratifying conventions. Here you see exactly what the people were approving and giving the force of law. Sometimes it’s quite similar to the federalists’ intent, and sometimes it’s not.
Original Meaning - refers to the generally accepted definition of the words of the day. Popular sovereignty, for example, referred to the principles that all powers/rights not given away, were retained. This is the basis of what makes up the 9th and 10th Amendments (what the founders actually referred to as the 11th and 12th…)
If you’d like to do some study on this topic, I can recommend the following:
–The Scholarship of the Original Understanding of the Constitution – Robert Natelson
– Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 – Kevin Gutzman
– The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and “Expressly” Delegated Power – Kurt Lash
– View of the Constitution of the United States – St. George Tucker
Publius/Huldah,
Thank you for your comments on the Constitution (the most misunderstood Law in the world – especially among Americans) and your question.
“Intent of a Founder and Founders quotes are often misleading to the words and intent of the Constitution.”
Many of the Founders spoke and wrote against the Constitution and it matters not what “they” said or wrote outside what is written in the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law.
“Many of the Founders did not like the final draft of the Constitution ……..until they studied it.”
Some Founders discontent with the Constitution changed their mind when time came to ratify it.
“As far as the people are concerned with the Constitution and involvement with government Article I, Sections 1 & 2 are the most important.”
Article I, Sections 1 & 2 are the most important part of the Constitution for the People to understand. It negates virtually all political rhetoric about electing a President and negates any entity (Lobbyist) controlling government (elected Officials/Lawmakers) but the People.
“The remainder of the Constitution the people gave consent to government to take care of it.”
As the People cannot make any law then they assigned government the jurisdiction and powers to do everything governments are supposed to do for a “country” of a free people. The people are not the government.
Allan
Michael,
Would a study of what you mentioned change in any way what is written in the Constitution?
Is not the Constitution the Law to rule U.S. governments?
Shouldn’t we study for an answer as to who or what entity is obligated to Enforce the Law of the Constitution on government and by what Constitutional power of enforcement is mentioned in the Constitution?
Allan
Allan – I do think you’re on to something here. But, without an understanding of what is being enforced, we end up with what he have today….which is people actually asking the government to carry out all kinds of unconstitutional activities. It’s our goal to help spread awareness of the limitations on power that the Constitution provides.
Michael, Michael, Michael!
1) Henceforth, I will say, “strict construction of the Constitution”, or “strict constructionist”, or “genuine meaning” in order to avoid phrases with the troublesome word, “original”, in them!
2) You make the relatively simple [strict construction of our Constitution] seem so complicated that the tendency among non-lawyers or among people who are not political philosophers would be to throw up their hands & move on to something else. That is not a result I want. I think any reasonably intelligent layman who can read The Federalist Papers & has a late 18th or early 19th century American dictionary, can understand the “genuine meaning” of our Constitution. [See my posts on the TCOT Constitution Classroom.]
3) Let us not quibble over terminology! That is not the issue. If one wants to know what our Constitution means, The Federalist Papers are THE DEFINITIVE AUTHORITY.
Those Papers are what is relevant; not artificial (and with all due respect, irrelevant) distinctions in terminology. PH
P – while the federalist papers are an important part of studying the ratifying process, it is a gross inaccuracy to claim that they are the sole and definitive explanation of the constitution.
Period.
I do strongly recommend that you do some further study on this topic. The links I left above will give you a wealth of information from some of the most respected Constitutional scholars in the country. I’m looking forward to discussing more of these important issues with you on future articles as well…
Publius/Huldah,
IMO you are correct. My GED (1968) education finds the Federalist Papers much more difficult to comprehend than the Constitution itself.
However, I do believe the FPs are the only reliable source to research for clarification of any misunderstood word, sentence, or paragraph of the constitution.
The Constitution is the People’s Law to rule their government and the People are obligated to enforce it, certainly not government (fox & hen house, LOL).
For instance the word Militia is mentioned only a few times in the Constitution and without a definition. Every American in 1787 knew what the Militia was. I have the FPs in one document on my computer, so searching the word Militia in the FPs reveals 65 occurrences throughout most of the FPs. That’s quite a bit of reading on the Militia.
BTW I do not recommend “studying” the FPS, search and use them only for definitions.
Allan
Michael,
What is to be enforced is the only thing that can be enforced, the Oath of Office. The People have absolutely no say so on anything else concerning government action and or the Constitution. The People cannot make a law (legislate) and they cannot amend the Constitution. The Force of the People to control government is limited too, limited to who gets into Office, especially the House of Congress and every two years.
As for definitions of the Constitution I am all for looking into all of them but do not believe we will find better constitutional scholars than the Authors.
Allan
Michael!
I have studied political philosophy for over 40 years (I have a degree in philosophy), have been a lawyer for over 35 years; and expect I am old enough to be your Mom.
The Federalist Papers have significance which far exceeds the light they shed on the “ratifying process”. They are THE most authoritative commentary on The Constitution.
And just where, pray, did I say they were the “sole” explanation of the Constitution? Where they speak, they are authoritative. But sometimes, they don’t address a point; and, as I have pointed out in my various posts in the TCOT Constitution Classroom, sometimes one has to refer to other contemporaneous works, as well as to an old American Dictionary.
I am not interested in impressing people with my extensive & profound knowledge, or in making learning the Constitution seem so complex that only brilliant people with degrees can understand it. That is elitist nonsense! I do not want to discourage The People from learning it. My goal is for every person in this country to have a good understanding of our Constitution. I WANT TO SHOW THEM HOW TO READ & STUDY THE CONSTITUTION ON THEIR OWN! If they will read (1) The Declaration of Independence (2) The Constitution (3) Use the Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution, and (4) use a late 18th or early 19th century American Dictionary for word meanings, THEN, they will know the Constitution better than most law school graduates, including most of the judges on the US Supreme Court.
So! Why not focus on how to teach The Constitution to The People instead of trying to show that you are more knowledgeable than I? This is not about You; it isn’t about Me. OUR COUNTRY is rapidly being turned into a totalitarian fascist dictatorship [in addition to everything else, I spent years in E. Europe during the Cold War & I have seen it first hand]; and here you are quibbling about irrelevant distinctions and patronizing an old lady!
Our friend Allan is the one I take my hat off for. He nailed it in his last post, & he is doing much to educate the People by showing them it is THEIR responsibility to vote the jerks out of office! PH
Sounds like everyone here has a good goal – getting the federal government down to the rules of the constitution. That I applaud!
I would have to add that Publius, you sure make it seem like that the only thing worthwhile studying is the federalist papers and your class. To hold the federalist as the bible of constitutional study is totally wrong.
Now maybe that’s not your intention, but that’s how it’s coming off. You’ve called original meaning and understanding “irrelevant” You’ve claimed that the federalist papers are the “definitive authority” to understanding what the constitution means. But that’s a very limited way of looking at it, and wrong.
The federalist papers tell us what those 3 people who wrote them meant. And personally, I think Alexander Hamilton was a criminal, so why should I care what his opinion on the meaning of the constitution was?
Tom, you don’t read carefully. You completely misunderstood what I said about “original” intent, etc.!
Your comments about The Federalist Papers reveal profound ignorance, and a mindset which is not open to rational discussion.
But you have caused me to revise my opinion: I no longer believe that everybody can understand The Constitution.PH
My hat is off to ALL of you who have posted your comments on this most important site! I have learned much just by perusing your various comments and I’m certain so has many others who only read but do not post comments. I just want you to know that your efforts are not in vain and to keep up the good work by debating and causing people to THINK! As I am now in my 66th year, I am of the 1948-60 school era when American & World history was taught along with Civics. I don’t recall ANY student back then that found those classes anything more then boring! Even though, enough of the material sunk into our young minds that remains with us until this very day. Unfortunatly it is NOW that people are starting to wake up and realizing the IMPORTANCE of our U.S. Constitution as they see it being attacked and breached by a Communist infiltrated “Supreme” Court over the years! As we are NOW standing at the precipice of destruction by a puppet-president, frauduantly placed and kept in power by a Communist-corrupted Congress and Supreme Court, does OUR U.S. Constitution become the CENTER of importance for the survival of our nation and American way of life! No matter WHAT the FRAUDS now in “power” within our Federal Government decide to “do” with OUR Constitution, even totally nullifying it, IT will ALWAYS be MY Constitution which I have taken an oath to defend from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! “I” will stand as my forefathers stood and fight to the death in its preservation! Anyone doing less is not worthy of the name American! Besides, WHO wants to live in a One World Government under Communist totalitarian control which they hail as their “New World Order”! I would rather die with my guns blazing, WITH MY COUNTRY, knowing that I fought to the bitter end with every last bullet in defiance of their SATANIC “order”! I pray that this website grows as more like-minded people seek knowledge of the greatest document of human freedom ever devised by mankind! God Speed and God Save America!
Dear Anticrime: I’m proud to be on your Side.
And now, Tom Walker: My previous reply to you was not as polite as it should have been. But you do illustrate the problem with our culture: “subjectivism” or “existentialism”. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, a product of our times; and the prevailing dogma of OUR time is existentialism. In a nutshell, existentialism is the rejection of an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis. Ayn Rand discusses this in her novel, Atlas Shrugged; and C.S. Lewis, in his essay, The Abolition of Man.
Suppose you are a federal judge and a case comes before you where the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, which purports to be made under the authority of Art I, §8, cl 3, is the issue. That constitutional provision reads:
“Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce…among the
several States…”
What does the quoted language mean? You have to decide the case, so what are you going to do?
Here are various approaches (stripped down to basics):
1. The subjectivist looks to his own personal thoughts on the subject and rules in accordance with those: “Well, I think it means …[fill in the blanks]…”
2. The corrupt judge rules according to his own self-interest (e.g., bribes, favors, etc.)
3. Others look to prior court decisions on the subject and rule mechanically in accordance with those.
4. The “strict constructionist”, “originalist”, the one looking for the “genuine meaning” of the clause – the “objectivist” – looks primarily to The Federalist Papers & an old American Dictionary to determine the meaning of the clause. One’s personal feelings or thoughts about any of the men who wrote The Federalist Papers are not relevant!
Now, Listen up: The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the People, who actually read them, and who then (via their respective States) ratified the Constitution. THIS is what elevates the Federalist Papers FROM being expressions of individual men TO THE most authoritative commentary on our Constitution.
“Subjectivism” holds that texts have no fixed or objective meaning: readers may interpret texts anyway they like. The view of the village idiot is as “good” [remember, there are no objective standards] as that of the most profound student of the subject. So people who know nothing at all about a subject are not hindered from opining!
The “strict constructionist” holds that texts have a fixed objective meaning, and it is the task of the reader to determine what that objective meaning is.
Subjectivism isn’t limited in application to construing writings. Like cancer, it spreads throughout mans’ souls; and as Ayn Rand & C.S. Lewis show, it ultimately destroys them and their countries. PH