Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

How does leaving out the word "expressly" alter the 10th Amendment?

So this is the Tenth Amendment

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.

I keep reading that because it wasn't written like....

The powers not delegated EXPRESSLY to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The wording on the latter denies implied powers, so because it wasn't worded that way... it does not reject implied powers of the nessecery and proper clause.... OK Fine, but where do they get off saying they ever had the power to make legislation that wasn't expressly covered in Article 8 Section 1 in the first place?
3 people have
this question
+1
Reply
  • The short version.

    1. The founders debated the word expressly, and chose to remove it intentionally.
    2. advocates of the monster-state claim that this means that the idea that D.C. being a government of delegated powers only is a farce.
    3. the real farce is the claim above....more for the why...
    4. Under the articles of confederation, there was a clause like the 10th amendment that said "expressly" delegated powers.
    5. the argument around the word "expressly" went like this - if we include it in the amendment, we end up with the same problems we had under the articles of confederation - because the federal government will only be empowered to do that which is spelled out word for word in the constitution the federal government will end up in a place where it's always violating the constitution, or unable to do anything. (the latter, these days, wouldn't be a bad place, though)
    6. So, they removed the word "expressly" to ensure that it didn't restrict the ability of the government to function.
    7. The practical result? As an example, the federal government is authorized, in article I, section 8 of the constitution, to build and maintain post offices. But, it doesn't expressly say that they can buy land to build those post offices on, or hire labor to build them, or even get electricity in the buildings today to make sure they can operate. It also doesn't expressly allow them to advertise, or just about anything else. If the word "expressly" was in the 10th Amendment, there would be arguments made, mostly correct too, that they couldn't do any of those things.
    8. Without the word "expressly" - the government can do these important, related things to carry out the powers enumerated in the constitution, under the guidelines of the necessary and proper clause - which are based on the common law doctrine of principles and incidents,.....but that's another story for another time.
    • view 2 more comments
    • I recently read up on Arver v. United States. The Supreme Court did NOT actually go with the Constitution on that one. It was such a travesty I almost felt like throwing up after I read it. There was a period there when our highest Court was very much for the power of the Fed over the private citizen.
    • The Constitution is the key point, i.e. it was not ratified by Congress, but by the People of each individual state. The reason for this, is that Congress lacked the AUTHORITY to change the Articles of Confederation under Article XIII.
      Therefore, it required the SOVEREIGN rulers of the state, to OVERRULE the Articles and disband them in favor of the Constitution.

      And when each state seceded in 1860-61, there was never any question that the People of each state authorized the separation by disbanding the Constitution in the same way; rather, this fact was simply denied by false history, claiming that states were not individually sovereign, but were only collectively sovereign under some nameless phantom "Union."

      This is the one point which "official" history will never mention, since it proves that each state is a sovereign nation unto itself, and that Lincoln was no different from Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein when they conquered the states of Poland and Kuwait etc.

      It's time that the truth came out; until then, the federal government will be the supreme and final judge of its own powers.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • "In order for a federally-exercised power to be 'necessary and proper' it must be a) something that, without which, would make the enumerated power impossible to exercise, and b) a lesser power than that which has been enumerated." - Affirmation #5 from the TAC's 10-4 Pledge, which can be found by visiting www.pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This reply was removed on 2011-03-28.
    see the change log
  • Federal Farmer no. 16 January 17, 1788:

    ...But admitting , on the general principle, that all rights are reserved of course, which are not expressely surrendered, the people could with sufficient certainty assert their rights on all occasions, and establish them with ease, still there are infinite advantages in particularly enumerating many of the most essential rights reserved in all cases: and as to the less important ones. we may declare in general terms, that all not expressely surrendered are reserved....The first point urged, is, that all power is reserved not expressely given, that particular enumerated powers only are given.

    James Madison, Federalist, no. 45 January 26, 1788

    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.

    Article II of The Articles of Confederation, which the delegates to the 1787 Convention were technically meeting to revise, said:

    Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressely delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

    In the ratification convention of the States (the conventions that really mattered) the issue of a Bill of Rights was repeatedly brought up. The Constitution would never had been ratified without the promise of the Bill of Rights being adopted almost immediately after the First new Congress met. Here is a speech by Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratification debates:

    Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before. I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction -- that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great Britain; for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the king's prerogative. It is so in that country which is said to be in such full possession of freedom. It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world. Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.

    When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon. She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.

    How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government.

    Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw -- government that has abandoned all its powers -- the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights -- without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers -- pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in fill and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

    That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights? By the ancient common law, the trial of all facts is decided by a jury of impartial men from the immediate vicinage. This paper speaks of different juries from the common law in criminal cases; and in civil controversies es trial by jury altogether. There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights now than then. Congress, from their general, powers, may fully go into business of human legislation. They may legislate, in criminal cases, from treason to the lowest offence -- petty larceny. They may define crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by. But when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence put on the virtue of representatives. What says our bill of rights? -- "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights? You let them loose; you do more you depart from the genius of your country. That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another, and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors, and your own! I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundredors were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force.

    In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? -- That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany -- of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone. And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication.

    A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? -- That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a bill of rights does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, hut the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the best way is to have no dispute. In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred! The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear. They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine.

    A Mr. George Nicholas responded:

    ...A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preëxisting claim to rights in the people...They (Congress) cannot legislate in any case but those particularly enumerated.
    • You write:

      "A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preëxisting claim to rights in the people...They (Congress) cannot legislate in any case but those particularly enumerated."

      Somehow, I fail to see how this precludes Congress from legislating any way it pleases. One might argue that this will motivate the voters to rise up and cast out such legislators; but experience has shown truth to Ben Franklin's saying that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

      No, Madison was quite clear in Resolutions, that the Constitution was strictly an INTERNATIONAL document, not a charter for a sovereign nation to which all states each surrendered their national sovereignty-- indeed, not even Lincoln or Jackson claimed this, instead distorting history to claim that the states were NEVER nationally sovereign unto themselves.

      So no matter what legislation was passed, the People (not the GOVERNMENT) of each state had the final say-- just like ANY sovereign nation has the final say over any law affecting it.

      Of course this has been suppressed by the current murderous regime; and therefore it's high time that the truth was liberated from this era of mass-suppression.... and the PEOPLE along with it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m oturaged
    1
    "How does leaving out the word "expressly" alter the 10th Ameotndment change the Constitution?"

    In the end, not much.
    Omitting the word "expressly," implies the word "inherently--" thereby allowing the federal government to pass any law that it pleases, simply by claiming that power to be "inherent" in the Constitution.

    Of course, however, the point is moot; for as long as the federal government claims to be a NATIONAL government as well, then it can do anything it wants anyway, since the national government is the supreme final authority; and so they could just likewise simply continue to CLAIM that they're "obeying the spirit of the Constitution."

    While voters might be more swayed by the fact that the federal government is violating things EXPRESSLY forbidden, likewise they might not, since voters can always be easily bought (and fooled) by slick politicians, and are always willing to believe that they're right and look the other way, when they think that there's something in it for them; for history proves that people typically feel ENTITLED to a share of their neighbor's wealth, if they can get it "legally," i.e. by re-writing the law to attain it.

    In REALTY, however, EACH STATE IS A SOVEREIGN NATION UNTO ITSELF; i.e. the Constitution wasn't supposed to be enforced by the written text, but by the national sovereignty of each individual state.
    Thereby, the popular majority of a state could always OVERRULE federal law, just like any sovereign nation can overrule any treaty or other law.

    However when the federal government started distorting history in order to claim supreme national authority to ITSELF, the majority of federal voters only saw dollar-signs; i.e. they were willing to sell out their own state's national sovereignty, in order to grab another state's wealth.

    And when those other states didn't like it, and exercised their supreme national authority in order to OVERRULE the federal government-- again, just like any sovereign nation may do by right-- the federal majority once again claimed that the minority was "violating national authority," and proceeded to commit Total War and mass-murder AGAINST these nations out of greed, re-writing history in order to claim that the Union was founded as a sovereign nation over the states in 1776-- rather than the FACT that each state was declared as a sovereign nation unto itself, JUST like Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait, Hitler did over Germany, and Stalin did over Eastern Europe.

    And ever since, history has been suppressed in order to VALIDATE the fact that Americans mass-murdered hundreds of thousands their own people for MONEY and POWER. That's right: before Hussein, before Pol Pot, before Hirohito, before Hitler, before Mao, before Stalin, before ALL the mass-murderers of the 20th century, there was LINCOLN, the great lunatic

    But of course, this blood-guilt is conveniently spun to their own GLORY, as history is written by the victors to make heroes out of demons; thus, the first thing they do is conveniently SUPPRESS the fact that each state is a sovereign nation unto itself.

    One they do this, they can proceed in claiming that they were "preserving the Union against treasonous rebellion" and "freeing the slaves--" etc.

    This began a long chain of similar suppressions, whereby the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Communists, Kmer Rouge, Vietcong, etc. all committed mass-murder and imperialism under the claim they were simply "liberating the enslaved masses from the evil capitalists" and "preserving the Germanic/Soviet/Chinese unions" etc.-- i.e. it's a shameless COVER-STORY; as everyone knows, the first casualty of war is truth, and history is written by the victors.

    And of course, like little pigs, most people would rather be eaten by wolves, than admit the hard honest truth and do the right thing; and like most farm animals, they'd rather steal a little red hen's bread than make their own (no reference to George Orwell intended).
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • No matter how you look at it...we are so far from what our forefathers envisioned as a country right now....Federal Government is expanding it's reach into areas of our lives that we could never have dreamt possible 25 years ago...
    We need to take our country back at what ever cost.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • The states always had the power to nullify federal laws which usurped non-delegated powers, and so the term "expressly" was not necessary.

    However Lincoln and Jackson suppressed the power of nullification, and rhua the federal government was free to construe the Constitution any way it pleased.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This reply was removed.
    see the change log
  • This reply was removed.
    see the change log
  • A government can't be limited by the same Constitution it interprets. So, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what the Constitution says or doesn't say, they'll tell you to F off and that you're "reading it wrong."

    Isn't this rather obvious?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited