Talk:Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Material from Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was split to State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States on 9 November 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
State legislative actions in protest of federal actions
- Agreed. I've put a "split" template into the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree at all. If the above user can be specific about what exactly has gotten out of hand. Certainly, not the size of the article. As to scope, the 10th amendment specifically cites limitations to federal powers. So how then wouldn't the state-based citations in this section be pertinent? You're going to have to do better than, "I just don't like it" --- which that appears to be, to me, what the two above users are saying. 10stone5 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- The reason that I think that this section shouldn't be in the article on the Tenth Amendment is that, as the article itself states, "state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact". Symbolic impact may mislead someone trying to understand how the Tenth Amendment actually works. Also, most of the 15 examples in this section don't mention the Tenth Amendment at all. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it should be split; the list of state protests against supposed 10th Amendment violations by the federal government is related to describing the 10th Amendment, but not crucial to its description. The State protests could very well be a separate article that is linked under the old heading (the usual "Main article:" deal), with a short description that various state legislatures have attempted to pass bills or resolutions in protest of supposed federal overreach. When you look at the contents on this page, it's a mess, with the minority of it having to deal with the Amendment itself or the legal implications; it just comes across as a massive list of complaints, which, while certainly useful, belong elsewhere. Matt White (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Debatable interpretation about limits of state actions
I just noticed this edit to the article. It appears to state as fact that "Health Care Nullification" state actions will be doomed because of federal supremacy. First of all, this confuses the issue because many of the state actions are federal lawsuits, not laws. Secondly, we don't have a crystal ball to know how the state laws will stand or not. The placement of the added sentence is also a non sequitur because it has nothing to do with the given paragraph. I do think this article leans too much toward the point of view of a particular advocacy group. If the context made sense, I could see mentioning Supremacy Clause or Federal preemption in this article as part of a more balanced approach. I am reverting this particular edit, but I wanted to explain why so that it is not seen as simply cheer-leading for the prevailing POV in the article. CosineKitty (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC) You apparently do not understand the Supremacy Clause, Federal preemption, nor did you closely read the edit you deleted. The edit reads: "However, the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of Federal preemption invalidate almost all of the state actions, e.g. National Health Care Nullification." All pure "nullification" acts are frivolous -- and for that reason, this sentence needs to be in the introduction to this issue. The Health Care Nullification acts are the epitomes of pure "nullification" acts, and are therefore the most appropriate "e.g." Because of the Supremacy Clause and Federal preemption, the states simply cannot "nullify" a federal statute which is otherwise constitutional. I am not saying that the states cannot challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute in federal courts; I am just simply stating a truism: "nullification" acts are frivolous. Pmalter0 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Should that not be more explicit? That those laws are frivolous as a State can't simply declare a federal law invalid short a supreme court decision on its constitutionality? But can it not be argued that these States may know full well they can't "nullify" these laws, but in so doing can test the issue in court? Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- These are sensible edits, IMO. Only United States v. Lopez and one other case to date have set limits on the use the Commerce Clause to justify legislation by the federal government which affect interstate commerce, even when the issue is not interstate commerce per se. Could use a citation, of course. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Supreme Court will always deny the power of nullification. They do not want to forfeit their place of power and control. The thing is that the States, not the Supreme Court, are the ultimate authority in regards to the Constitution. The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not the other way around. The Supremacy Clause is being grossly misinterpreted. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson discussed at lengths the rightful place of the Federal Government and the ability of states to nullify. I would think that two of the most influential writers and signers of the constitution knew a thing or two about the documented they invested their lives into the creation of. Desire Mercy (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to state that the Doctrine of Implied Powers is directly related to the 10th and I would like that to be stated. -Bob Goernig Phd at Duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Excuse me! I just made a valid statement!
State legislative actions
Please expand statements to include which states introduced/passed said measures. This will increase usefulness of the page.
- Instead of: "...six states introduced such legislation."
- Place: "...six states (Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) introduced such legislation."
A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments regarding Tenth Amendment's intended role in limiting Federal government spending
Why no mention of the Tenth Amendment's intended role in limiting Federal government spending?
At the time the United States Constitution was written there was some confusion as to whether the words "common defense and general welfare" were the PURPOSE of the following specific spending powers in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution - or whether there was some sort of "general welfare spending power" allowing the Federal government to spend money on anything it declared was for the "general welfare" even if the spending was on something not listed in the specific spending powers of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment settles this confusion - it is clear that the Amendment means (if it means anything at all) that the Federal government may only spend money on those things that are specifically listed - that "common defense and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight. That there is no "catch all" "general welfare spending power" allowing the Federal government to spend as much as it likes on anything it declares for the "general welfare".
- See Helvering v. Davis, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established that Congress essentially has plenary spending powers. Justice Cardozo wrote:
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.
- Hopefully that helps answer your question. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No it does not answer my question. After all if the Federal government can spend money on anything it declares for the "general welfare" what is the point of listing specific spending powers in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. And what is the point of the Tenth Amendment. No State would have joined a Union where the Federal government can spend any amount of money it likes on anything it declares for the "general welfare" as such a government would be more unlimited that George III in his wildest dreams. Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to amend the plain text of the Constitution - so the United States v Butler is not relevant. Other than as an example of intellectually corrupt judges. Nor is the opinion of Mr Hamilton relevant - as he did not write the Tenth Amendment, Mr Madison drafted it. It is the opinion of Mr Madison (and the plain reading of the text by any honest person) that settles the matter. To claim that there is a catch-all "general welfare spending power" is clearly false - the "common defense and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. The Tenth Amendment settles any honest doubt about this matter.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:39BF:897B:D1F6:3652 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)