Reading about the battle between Montana and the ATF, an idea came to mind.
Let’s propose an amendment to the Constitution:
“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.”
How many Democrats, RINOs, newscasters, liberal bloggers, Constitutional scholars, U.S. presidents, etc, would recognize it for what it is.
And how many would criticize it as dangerous? Or racist? Or something.
Like our muscles -those parts of the constitution not flexed and used fall into atrophy. I recall when the feds threatened to withhold funds from two states that hadn’t aggressively complied with Carter’s silly 55mph. How I prayed that one of those governors would have challenged the feds under the bill of rights and said “Go ahead and try it” I will hold all of our state’s income taxes in escrow until such time as you back down and if you send troops our national guard will meet you at the borders. how many in congress would have allowed this to occur over a 55mph speed limit?
We need to use and enforce our rights or they wither. The feds theft of our power is our fault -not the feds.
Libs hate guns, unless they’re strapped to someone who’s job it is to protect them…then they’re fine with them.
Don, they pulled the same thing with raising the drinking age to 21. The Feds pull that move anytime they want to do somthing but the constitution won’t let them, they pull funding for somthing that they aren’t required to fund untill the states go along with whatever they want. Instead of the Feds passing a law that they don’t have the power to pass, they get it passed defacto by forcing the states to do their dirty work for them. Look for this to come for future bans on transfats and stuff like that.
These folks don’t need a reason. They only need a means. Watch for the BATFEQDM to assert authority by virtue of the fact that such firearms will likely–at some time or another–transit along a federal highway.
Pelosi has given her own bizarre interpuptation of the 10th, and has called anyone with an opposing view a “10th admendm,ent cultist”.
It would be great if a state brought a 10th admendment issue to SCOTUS. I’d be afraid of the answer considering the judges.
They may well recognize the words, but they cannot, and will not acknowledge the meaning of the words because that would make them irrelevant in the scheme of things.
WHOA! That sounds RADICAL MAN! I don’t know if we can handle that much power – Maybe we should just let the Fed Gov handle it… /sarc!!!
Repeal 17 to give the teeth back to 10.
The 10th died many years ago and never got a proper funeral. Hey, it’s hard to repeal an amendment, how about we just ignore it instead?
Just a note: it’s Montana and the BATFE, not Wyoming…
[Good catch. Fixed it. My mind must have been wandering.
Maybe I can get Harvey to re-run his Fun Facts About The States so I can keep them straight. “Montana. It’s like Wyoming, but spelled different.” – B]
Pingback: An Inconvenient Experiment » Blogs For Victory
By that measure, I can think of all sorts of new ammendments to reccomend to the constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Would be a good one.