Name one thing you think IS unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 03:37:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Name one thing you think IS unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Name one thing you think IS unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment  (Read 1245 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« on: December 03, 2004, 08:52:41 PM »
« edited: December 03, 2004, 08:59:57 PM by Philip »

Name one thing you think IS unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment and the fact that federal government is not specifically given that power.

One guy told me Social Security was constitutional because of this:

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

One guy told me minimum wage was constitutional because of this:

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Yes, I laughed at that guy. And I have yet to hear anyone make an argument for why the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is constitutional, yet there was no controversy, except Roe vs. Wade (which we all know is complete trash).
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2004, 10:02:01 PM »


Actually, this is more of a resolution than a true law. It just means that an interpretation of the Constitution that says one state has to honor another state's same sex unions is invalid.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2004, 10:30:31 PM »
« Edited: December 03, 2004, 10:35:37 PM by Philip »

Yeah, faith in public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. A state cannot refuse to honor something on the basis that it was issued by another state; it can refuse to honor something.

To say anything else would be to give every state the ability to pass law for other states. A license to kill, a license to speed, a license to steal.

Those can't be denied because they're from another state. But they can be denied.

If Kansas gives someone a license to carry concealed weapons, Nebraska can certainly not honor it. But they couldn't have a Nebraska concealed weapons license and not honor his just because it's from Kansas.

Recognizing public acts, records, and judicial proceedings is not the same as giving away sovereignty to those acts, records, and proceedings.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 10 queries.