foofighter20x
11-07-2007, 02:03 AM
For this article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html
Here's what I wrote in two emails:
There's No Theory About the Tenth Amendment
You quoted it in your story, but I don't think you quite understood that the 10th Amendment isn't something open to interpretation. James Madison, as one of the principle authors of the Constitution, was consistently clear on this point.
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. - The Tenth Amendment (Madison was the principle author of this amendment)
It is essential to order the concept to understand it:
The Federal Government only has the powers given to it in the Constitution; the several states reserve for themselves the rest with the exception of:
1) powers specifically denied to the states by the federal Constitution; or
2) powers the people deny to their respective state by either:
a) prohibiting their state government from doing an act within their state constitutions; or
b) by not delegating to the state in their state constitution the authority to do an act in the first place.
The Federalist Papers No. 14 (Madison):
"In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction."
The Federalist Papers No. 45 (Madison):
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
One more thing to understand about federalism
You keep trying to mesh Dr Paul's abortion legislation with his statements. Here are some things to clear that up:
1) A Sense of Congress provision in federal legislation is NOT enforceable law. It's merely a statement of intent for the judiciary to understand what Congress wanted to do when it passed the law. It's only there to help the judge make sense of the law and how to apply it to the case before him so he doesn't have to guess at what the authors meant.
More here: http://www.c-span.org/questions/week140.asp
2) The key provision of that law Dr Paul wrote was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to issues coming out of the states (note the provisions with the accent ` before them). Those provisions effectively leave the states a free hand to legislate appropriately and to be free from the federal courts overturning their laws without some other solid constitutional basis (which Roe v. Wade lacked). More here: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446 It's entirely consistent with his consitutional stance.
3) Excluding the states does not eliminate all abortion cases from the federal courts, however. There's still the matter of federally administered lands such as DC*, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc**. Hence, whatever law Congress passes at the federal level would only be enforceable within those jurisdictions.
* (of which the Constitution specifically hands to Congress a general power over all legislation, much like a state government may possess [and with which Congress incorporated the city of WDC to make its own ordinaces, much like the State of Illinois incorporated Chicago, and any state incorporates any city [see: Article I, Section 8, clause 17])
**(the remainder of these being constitutional grey areas; since the federal government owns these lands, however, it's presumed they have authority over them)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html
Here's what I wrote in two emails:
There's No Theory About the Tenth Amendment
You quoted it in your story, but I don't think you quite understood that the 10th Amendment isn't something open to interpretation. James Madison, as one of the principle authors of the Constitution, was consistently clear on this point.
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. - The Tenth Amendment (Madison was the principle author of this amendment)
It is essential to order the concept to understand it:
The Federal Government only has the powers given to it in the Constitution; the several states reserve for themselves the rest with the exception of:
1) powers specifically denied to the states by the federal Constitution; or
2) powers the people deny to their respective state by either:
a) prohibiting their state government from doing an act within their state constitutions; or
b) by not delegating to the state in their state constitution the authority to do an act in the first place.
The Federalist Papers No. 14 (Madison):
"In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction."
The Federalist Papers No. 45 (Madison):
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
One more thing to understand about federalism
You keep trying to mesh Dr Paul's abortion legislation with his statements. Here are some things to clear that up:
1) A Sense of Congress provision in federal legislation is NOT enforceable law. It's merely a statement of intent for the judiciary to understand what Congress wanted to do when it passed the law. It's only there to help the judge make sense of the law and how to apply it to the case before him so he doesn't have to guess at what the authors meant.
More here: http://www.c-span.org/questions/week140.asp
2) The key provision of that law Dr Paul wrote was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to issues coming out of the states (note the provisions with the accent ` before them). Those provisions effectively leave the states a free hand to legislate appropriately and to be free from the federal courts overturning their laws without some other solid constitutional basis (which Roe v. Wade lacked). More here: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446 It's entirely consistent with his consitutional stance.
3) Excluding the states does not eliminate all abortion cases from the federal courts, however. There's still the matter of federally administered lands such as DC*, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc**. Hence, whatever law Congress passes at the federal level would only be enforceable within those jurisdictions.
* (of which the Constitution specifically hands to Congress a general power over all legislation, much like a state government may possess [and with which Congress incorporated the city of WDC to make its own ordinaces, much like the State of Illinois incorporated Chicago, and any state incorporates any city [see: Article I, Section 8, clause 17])
**(the remainder of these being constitutional grey areas; since the federal government owns these lands, however, it's presumed they have authority over them)