Posted by Bob on 9/4/2007, 1:16 pm, in reply to "Re: Individualism" That's because it is the tenth AMENDMENT. An amendment is by definition ... a change made by correction, addition, or deletion So the amendments CHANGE the Constitution. If you can find a way to avoid this meaning that the prior clause is therefore superseded, then I give up. As to the drafters not being clear, I don't know how much more clear this could be: 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. That the drafters did not use my Re-wording is a matter of a choice of words, not a question of whether they meant that powers claimed by the feds must be explicit in the Constitution, and that the feds could not claim the benefit of the doubt in such matters. If everything in the Constitution were as unclear as some on the left say they are, then we would cease to be a nation ruled by laws, and become ruled by men. Unfortunately, the court's use of such words as "penumbra of emanations" has introduced unclarity for the sole purpose of handing down rulings which are NOT explicit in the Constitution. The craven cowardice of the legislature, in refusing to rebuff this challenge to their powers, has only encouraged the court to exceed its authority. THAT in turn is why legal cases are now so unpredictable that lawyers find it productive to go "judge shopping." The law should not be a mystery, not a game of chance. It should be written clearly, interpreted according to its plain words, and if that is insufficient, let the legislature answer to the people. But it is not the role of judges to torture the law until they can rule according to what they think the law SHOULD say.
72.243.26.154
"...NOWHERE does it give any indication of negating the general welfare clause."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread