Great discussion.

Thank you so much for this video :)

The width of a case defines what is brought to federal government! I literally heard one woman say “ you can’t use one paper to say how I can judge” .. then let’s look at a case that was very large and how you judged

The new deal supreme court (where FDR expanded the seats on the supreme court just to get what he wanted) essentially reversed the entire purpose of the constitution and the 10th amendment. Instead of telling the federal government... "You can ONLY do things listed here" it switched to "You can do whatever you want, except for a few symbolic things here" It's caused ridiculous damage ever since.

Hi, did you guys stop at the 10th amendment? Or are there videos for the remaining 17? Can't seem to find them

1:20 📰🏛️

Randy Barnett is the man!

The general welfare clause from the preamble, and the commerce clause, have been used to get around the limitations on the power of the federal government provided by the Tenth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. These are two big reasons we have a massively powerful and much too large federal government today.

@freesk8

6 жыл бұрын

Back in the '20's, we understood that the federal government had no power to make alcohol illegal. So during prohibition, they had to pass constitutional amendments to prohibit, and then to repeal prohibition. But we have no amendment that allows the feds to make any recreational drug illegal. Why? The Constitution has not changed. What has changed is that we no longer understand the limitations of government power that the Constitution represents. Under the 10th amendment, the entire federal war on drugs should be ruled unconstitutional. The states may do it, if their constitutions allow it, but the feds may not.

@michaelbryan606

4 жыл бұрын

Nowhere in the constitution does the power to regulate legal possession of arms exist, unless I'm mistaken. Yet our federal government stomps all over that regularly.

Randy Barnett is cool, but Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center is where it's at!

❤

Everyone conveniently seems to overlook the fact that powers are granted to State government "respectively", which, by definition, ensures that the States are also limited in their jurisdiction by the powers expressly conferred upon them by their respective constitutions. Therefor the 10th amendment guarantees that any power not expressly conferred upon either government is reserved by the People. In most States, this includes matters such as "family law". Therefor, every time said State takes a child away from a parent or exercises discretion towards child custody or parenting time, it is not only violating the 10th amendment, but also your 1st amendment right to peaceful assembly and your 14th amendment right.

I disagree with the notions in this lesson for the following reasons: States don't have rights or inherited powers: they only have certain powers not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution or in conflict with the delegated powers to the federal government. A delegation of power is really nothing more than a Power of Attorney. Where does the source of that power come from? The States with their supposed rights or from the People? Obviously, the answer is from the people. Was the word "people" intentionally left to be the last word by the drafters of the original Bill of Rights's last amendment? If so, for what reason? What was the reason to include the word "or" with respect to state delegated powers? Again, where did those powers come from to be delegated? Is it logical to conclude that the people were left to decide if they wanted to be regulated by the states for their own health, safety and welfare without state intrusions or meddling? I conclude that an educated class of people can Revoke state Police Powers by merely declaring it to say a ticketing officer on a federal highway and state definitively that the officer lacks jurisdiction by revocation of the state's subordinate authority to the Federal Government's enumerated powers spelled out in the constitution namely by the "or" logic gate presented as an option in the Tenth Amendment with people having the last word on that topic. What if the state is causing injuries instead of legitimately preserving my health, safety and welfare and thus in conflict with the Tenth Amendment's "or to the people" clause? In other words, instead of doing what I may have in acquiescence done in the past by submitting to state subordinate authority due to a lack of education, instead now I realize they are injuring me and in conflict of my own interests and therefore I have the reserved Power to REVOKE state delegated powers.

@misstchey9686

4 ай бұрын

if acting in commercial law then they are having you agree without agreeing, under the FIRST LAST name which is the corporation that they made for you. And in any case if they violated your rights after the agreement you are correct. You can and should end the contract and revoke their power over you. You are not a criminal and you have given them consent and they are bound to give decent and just care, and bound to the constitution to withhold whatever oaths that they chose to swear by as a public servant or government official their powers come from their corporate charter which is given its powers and rights from this amendment, but the 9th amendment reaffirms that this does not take away any powers by allowing the states to form their own constitutions.

I wonder if the Earn It bill violates the 10th amendment

@sirellyn4391

4 жыл бұрын

Most things do these days, but the supreme court refuses to enforce the 10th amendment anymore.

Do subsequent amendments not supersede past amendments? If the Constitution was understood one way after the 10th amendment, the 14th *amends* that understanding. I'm not saying that I think the federal government should have more power, but rather it seems that the text of the Constitution (and therefore its proper understanding) is allowing them to.

@owlnyc666

2 жыл бұрын

Does the New Testament supersede the Old Testament? It depends on how you interpret the scriptures! 🤔😉😏

@owlnyc666

2 жыл бұрын

Remember Prohibition? 17th vs 21st Amendments.

@135monster

2 жыл бұрын

@@owlnyc666 yeah so since the 21st amendment is now operative, the 17th is void. Otherwise it would be impossible to assess whether or not prohibition was in effect, because the two amendments are contradictory.

@owlnyc666

2 жыл бұрын

Marijuana for recreational use.. Federal Law or State Law! Voter I.D. laws? Federal or State? Abortion LAWS. State or Federal? Original Inent or Living Constitution? Is the Law , the Constitution written for an or men for the Constitution? 😅😉😏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

@williamcarter7977

2 жыл бұрын

@@135monster I agree.

This is all literally known as “ vague rights” you literally can’t define it beyond what has been laid out there! No one can define the “ vague rights “

They want information about the government, they want to be able to directly talk to or listen to everyone in government and not just listen to the president talk

Well regulated Civil Wildlands responders Red Dawgz 2024

Really when you think about it, no one in America really has any kind of real power lol Which is why wealth has become the real power

What are samples of powers reserved to the people? If congress and the president are servants and employees of the people, wouldn't it follow that the people can micro manage the execution of the duties of federal government agencies that do not conflict with the constitutional laws?

The Federal government is obligated amd granted power under Article IV Section 4 to enforce the final provision of the 10th amendment, ensuring that States are also limited in power in accordance with the powers given to them by the citizens of that state through their State Constitution. What reason would we have to establish State Constitutions otherwise and why would WE THE PEOPLE write State government a blank check like that when Shays rebellion against local government had just caused the Nation to abandon the Articles of Confederation and ratify the US Constitution. The Constitution also begins with the words WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES to establish that WE THE PEOPLE define the powers of government and the rights of its People. WE THE PEOPLE have the inherent authority to review and veto any act or decision of any governing branch at any time because WE THE PEOPLE alone have the power to enforce that right and any law created under the Constitution for that matter. In a republic, whenever governments actions or opinions conflict with the will or best interests of the People at large, an act of treason has been perpetrated, but not by government as an entity but by the individuals who have violated the People's trust by deceiving them, and who have abused the sovereign power lent to that office by the People to be used against them. Therefor, such "government representatives" are in fact invaders who have infiltrated our government in order to commit acts of Domestic Violence from within by attempting to nullify the People's rights, liberties, freedoms and laws, imposing their own that are otherwise foreign to the People in their place. Why else include the guarantee of a republican form of government, protection against Invasion, and protection against Domestic Violence all in one clause of the Constitution?

FIRST!!