Posted by Bob on 9/5/2007, 9:01 am, in reply to "Re: Individualism" The gen welf clause is clearly not intended to negate the rest of the Constitution. It is, in fact, somewhat ambiguous, and that ambiguity is addressed by the effect of the 10th AM. So if someone wishes to use the gen welf to justify a federal law, he has to contend with the 10th Am, which says that the powers not granted... are reserved... So are ALL powers granted under the gen welf? Of course not. Does gen welf mean that NO powers are granted? Of course not. So you have to look for clarity. Without clarity, the gen welf can mean anything or nothing. The Tenth Am provides guidance. And where there is a conflict between the gen welf and the Tenth, the amendment always takes precedence. That's by definition of an amendment. Another instance is the interstate commerce clause. The feds can pass any law which regulates interstate commerce. But again, this cannot be used as a catch-all to evade the 10th Amendment, and an important Supreme Court ruling was decided on that principle. A federal law banned all firearms with 500(?) feet of a school. It fell under interstate commerce. The court struck down the law, saying that such a law could be made by the states, but NOT by the feds. Good law, not however a good FEDERAL law. THAT is my point about the tenth am.
72.243.26.154
I did not say that the purpose of the 10th Am was to supersede the general welfare clause, but rather, that it has that effect.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread