[/i]Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.[/i]
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.
Do other countries have such a statement in their Constitutions or basic government document?
It seems to me that this is the fundamental difference between the US and the rest of the Western world. The foundation of the US lies on a shared government. The Federal goverment was never intended to be the absolute authority. Sure, the states were to function under the basic framework of the Federal government, but much is left out of the Constitution.
Second question, what does "to the States respectively, or to the people" mean? Does it mean that the Federal Legislative and Executive branches have that power since they are the elected reprsentatives ov the people? Somehow I don't think that's what it means since that would give the power right back to the Federal Government which the 10th amendment is saying does not have the power.
Originally posted by EladarCanada has some aspects of federalism, but to my knowledge, no western country gives as much autonomy to its provinces as the US does to its states.
[b][/i]Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.[/i]
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.
Do other countries have such a statement in their Constitutions or basic government document?
It see t back to the Federal Government which the 10th amendment is saying does not have the power.[/b]
The "to the people" presumably means that the fact that a power not given to the federal government has not been exercised by the states does not mean that it reverts to the federal government. Instead, it remains with the people. In essence, the 10th Amendment is saying that, unless this Constitution gives the federal government a power, it may not exercise that power, regardless of whether the states choose to regulate that area.
Edit: Hey, wait. It's August. Never mind my post.
Originally posted by EladarYou do realize that the Obama administration is now in the process of suing you for this thread don't you?
[b][/i]Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.[/i]
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.
Do other countries have such a statement in their Constitutions or basic government document?
It see ...[text shortened]... t back to the Federal Government which the 10th amendment is saying does not have the power.[/b]
Wake up man, the feds rule the states. Now the US is just like the rest of the world. All I can say is Yepee!!!
Originally posted by sh76Federalism is dead.
Canada has some aspects of federalism, but to my knowledge, no western country gives as much autonomy to its provinces as the US does to its states.
The "to the people" presumably means that the fact that a power not given to the federal government has not been exercised by the states does not mean that it reverts to the federal government. Instead, it remai ...[text shortened]... the states choose to regulate that area.
Edit: Hey, wait. It's August. Never mind my post.
If what you say is true, then does the Federal government have a right to say anything about Education? Sure, it has an interest in Education, but Constitutionally does it have the right to have any power over Education whatsoever?
Getting back to the greater picture...
It seems to me that the 10th amendment is what makes the US unique. It is the foundation of the 'small government' crowd that seems to be such a mystery to Europeans. How can you have a small government? Why shouldn't the governmetn have the right to rule all of the country on all matters? In their countries, that's how the governments were designed. But here in the US we have a different design. An all powerful Federal government is not what is described in the Constitution.
Originally posted by EladarThe federal government has the right to say how your child is educated, what doctor you see, and soon the EPA will turn into the gastapo regarding your energy expenditures. In fact, they do pretty much everything now other than immigration which ironically is their ONLY constitutional responsibility.
If what you say is true, then does the Federal government have a right to say anything about Education? Sure, it has an interest in Education, but Constitutionally does it have the right to have any power over Education whatsoever?
Getting back to the greater picture...
It seems to me that the 10th amendment is what makes the US unique. It is the foun ...[text shortened]... nt design. An all powerful Federal government is not what is described in the Constitution.
Originally posted by whodeyIt looks like Congressman Pete Stark agrees with you.
The federal government has the right to say how your child is educated, what doctor you see, and soon the EPA will turn into the gastapo regarding your energy expenditures. In fact, they do pretty much everything now other than immigration which ironically is their ONLY constitutional responsibility.
PETE STARK: "The Federal Government can do most anything in this country"
&feature=player_embedded
Originally posted by EladarThe same reason he is suing Arizona. Anyone state or person who acts outside of his approval can expect a law suite. So go ahead and take it all the way to the Supremes if you dare, he has appointed enough cronies to take care of you.
Why would Obama sue him?
Originally posted by EladarThe EU is less centralized than the US. It doesn't make much sense to propose a federal system for small western countries like Luxembourg, Portugal, Ireland, etc.
It seems to me that this is the fundamental difference between the US and the rest of the Western world.