Posted by Lee Russ The POINT, which you will apparently never see or acknowledge, is how the Amendment changes the original, and which parts of the original are changed. As to your opinion that you "don't know how much more clear" the 10th Amendment could be, that pretty much clinches it--you see no ambiguity when clarity serves your purpose, no matter how ambiguous something is ON ITS FACE. I just explained what the ambiguity is; read my last post. If the amendment was intended to supercede the general welfare clause, they would have by God said that. You assume that was the purpose, and I suspect you assume it because those thousands of right wing propaganda sites you dwell on have repeated that conclusion so often it sounds like natural truth to you. And thousands of constitutional scholars have debated the meaning of the 10th and just about every other amendment; it isn't just me who finds it ambiguous. Your responses are approaching the Kafkaesque. I quit. We've exceede my capacity for miscommunication and non-communication.
on 9/4/2007, 2:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Individualism"
75.69.88.150
You need to debate this with someone who can take this seriously: 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 If you can find a way to avoid this meaning that the prior clause is therefore superseded, then I give up.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread