Violation of 10th Amendment

[Yankee1]

Hello All
     a Congressman Peter De Fazio of Oregons 4th district says that the Supreme Courrt has ruled that by an expanded interpretation the commerece clause that the clause supercedes the 10th amendment.
THIS IS BOLOGNA. The Constitution says it take a con con to change
anything in the constitution. They are using this phony excuse to say that the government can regulate healthcare which is incorrect and they know it. Now you know what phony grounds they are using in
violation of our constitution. We can't let them get away with this either.
                                           Yankee1

[dukkillr]

Can you either clarify your thoughts or provide us with some links?  I'm having a hard time following your reasoning.  I'm not sure what a "con con" is but it DOES NOT take a constitutional convention to create an amendment.  Check article 5.

[Yankee1]

Hi Dukkillr
   The constitution clearly says that to change it requires a con con.
either an unlimited or a limited. the limited to change an item in it.
If that be the case then how can an expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause supercede the 10th amendment?
This clearly takes the power away from the people and gives it to the congress nullifying the purpose of the 10th amendment.
If the congress through the supreme court can amend the constitution to suit its desires then the constitution is without meaning and
"We The People" is meaningless. Therefore by these methods congress
can circumvent the constituution.
                            What Think You?
                            Yankee1

[Yankee1]

Hi Again Dukkillr
    You asked for a link.
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=508
Please refer to his comments on the 10th amendment.
                                  Yankee1

[Yankee1]

Hi Again Dukillr
   This says 2/3rds of both houses not anything about the supreme court giving an expanded version of the commerce clause superceding the 10th amendment.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and forth clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
                               Yankee1

[dukkillr]

Do you recognize that your fourth post is correct and defeats the argument you put forth in your first and second?  You DO NOT need a constitutional convention because there is the word, "or" in Article 5.  In fact there are a great deal of amendments to the constitution and there has never been a constitutional convention, at least post formation.  Now you may not believe those amendments to be valid, but you would be citing a failed line of reasoning.  The SCOTUS has recognized the legitimacy of those amendments so your opinion doesn't hold legal weight.

Now as to the commerce clause, you *may* be right.  If something passes I encourage you to gain standing and file suit.  I suspect you will lose, and here's why...  Healthcare is perhaps inextricably tied to a person's given employment.  It is involved in Federal and State tax laws both for employees and employers.  It makes some absurd percentage of our GDP, nationwide.  I think it would be a hard sell that regulating healthcare does not qualify as, "interstate commerce" but I certainly could be wrong. 

Look, we've had this discussion in other threads.  I'm not pro-Nationalized healthcare.  I am however, pro-reality.  I don't believe your 10th amendment argument will win, in reality.  Maybe I'm wrong.  The SCOTUS has backed off interstate claims in recent years.  In some ways I would hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Yankee1]

Hi Dukkillr
   If that be so then any amendments in the constitution can be changed by amendment without a constitutional convention.
Therefore the 10th amendment held sacred by the states can be rendered useless by amending with expanded interpretation.
So the people do not have the freedom they think they have.
Why don't they just tell us what to do if we have no say in what is to be done? I think the American People are sick to death of this double talk while they the congress and senate attempt to take our liberty away from us. Mayby we should just go directly to the international bankers to find out what they have planned for us next.
I just can't wait until Texas finds out.
                                         Yankee1

[Graybeard]

I don't believe you have an understanding of the manner in which amendments are approved. Then once congress approves so must a majority of the states. It ain't a simple matter of congress passing an amendment.

[Yankee1]

Hi GB
    Don't you think that if this was being done to the 10th amendment that we would have heard something about it.
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisina,   have been recently been saying that their states reserved their rights under the 10th amendment.
Do you think that they know that their rights under the 10th amendment are null and void and are controled by the Federal Government because of the commerce clause?
I printed out Artcle 5 which describes what is required to amend the constitution.  The Federal Government is supposed to be a servant of the States not vice versa.
                                         Yankee1

[dukkillr]

I still don't clearly understand what point you're trying to make.  Do I think the entire states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana contain no people who understand SCOTUS precedent and legal history?  I somehow doubt it.  Each of those states have legal scholars, attorneys, and public policy grads, among others.  I don't know how they could have missed one of the more important doctines of case law in the last 100 years.  The new emphasis on states exerting 10th amendment freedoms clearly carves out areas that ARE NOT interstate commerce.  For instance, (I think it was...) Montana has tried to argue that weapons made and kept in the state should not be covered by Federal Law.  I'm not sure even that idea is going work, but...

Surely you can see why healthcare is different than guns created and kept in Montana.  Healthcare is a much less tangible object, and one that would be nearly impossible to confine to a state.  Companies operate in multiple states, people (like me) work in one state and live in another.  People travel and get sick.  And then there's all the Federal spending in Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA, HIPPA, VA, and who knows whatever other programs, laws, and systems.  And then there are the federal tax laws and breaks for consumer, provider, and employer.  Like it or not, I don't believe it is a winning argument to claim healthcare is not covered under interstate commerce. 

Now you may disagree with that line or cases, lots of people do, but it doesn't make them invalid.  None of this is new, indeed lately it's been moving more towards state's rights...

I have a spare Con Law book here.  If you pay for shipping and promise to send it back I'll let you borrow it.

[Yankee1]

Hello Dukkillr
    That is very nice of you to offer the book but I can get any information I require. I am still stuck on "All rights not specified in the constitutiion are retained by the people" and I see what I interpret as
much meaning being really stretched to the limit to detriment of the people.
                              Yankee1

[dukkillr]

Hello Dukkillr
    That is very nice of you to offer the book but I can get any information I require. I am still stuck on "All rights not specified in the constitutiion are retained by the people" and I see what I interpret as
much meaning being really stretched to the limit to detriment of the people.
                              Yankee1

"All rights not specified..."
BUT the power to regulate interstate commerce is specifically granted by the Constitution.  So it's not covered by the words, "not specified in the constitution".

Again, it's not like I don't agree with you, it's that reality doesn't agree with you.  I believe if you lay your hands on a Con Law book and read the chapter on interstate commerce it will clear a great deal of this up for you.

[Yankee1]

Hi Again Dukkillr
   I have read it. Everything from cattle with ticks to underage girls are covered by the commerce clause.  Just about anything transported between States.Perhaps it would be easier to say what is not covered by that expanded interpretation of the commerce clause. Seems to be a catch all for anything they wish to include.
                                       Yankee1

[Yankee1]

The Constitution was written under a simple principle - positive grant. In short, what this means is this: The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.Everything else is “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

Period.

Itis true that both sides of the isle attempt dictorial power although
They attempt to grab power it is not given by the constitution.
                                     Yankee1

[rak55]

why couldn't healthcare be contained to one state when I've already had blue cross and blue shield from certain states like bc/bs of Illinois, so they are calling it by state in some cases. I also believe that interstate commerce was meant to improve the economy of the entire USA and not to be used to restrict or infring on any rights.

[magooch]

 
Itis true that both sides of the isle attempt dictorial power although
They attempt to grab power it is not given by the constitution.
                                     Yankee1

[/quote]

Yankee, of which island do you refer?  Politically speaking, I think those on the left side of the aisle are much more prone to take liberties with the Constitution that also attempts to take liberties from us.

[jlwilliams]

As a matter of practicalty, the 9th and 10th ammendments have been trampled on and have been more or less void since the 1860s.

  The Constitution really only gets lip service from Washington DC.  Their power does not flow from those powers specificly delegated to them in the Constitution.  Their powers (to tax, spend and generally 'rule' us) stem from the governments ability to use force against us.  Fail to go along with them and they WILL kick in the door and put us in prison.  So, the missuse and abuse of the commerce clause is just the way it is.  Fail to pay tax on items not introduced into interstate commerce (feds claim the items traded within one state effect items that may have been traded interstate, had the deal not been made within the state, therefor the commerce clause applies) and see if you aren't jailed.

  I say again, their power over us stems from our fear of their legal monopoly on the use of force.  I'd love anybody to demonstrate I'm wrong on that.  I wish it weren't true, but it is.

[Yankee1]

OK Magooch
      I should be using spell check I dropped the (a) from aisle.thanks for the correction.
JlWilliams
      You confirm my point. Its good to see I'm not alone in my observations. "We the people" should be raising cane about abuse of power in the governments interpretation of our Constitution. We should bring this subject in front of the public when ever possible.
                                                   Yankee1