Are their any candidates running on a "Bring the 10th Amendment back" platform?

Question

It seems that EVERYTHING now is Federally-mandated. Unfortunately, when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, that is NOT what they had in mind. EVERYTHING that is not directly in the Constitution is supposed to be up to the states.
That way, if you don't like a particular law (Abortion for example), you don't have to get it nationally reversed. All you have to do is get your particular state to reverse it, or move to a different state.

Abortion
Homosexual marriage
Gun control
Education policies
Crime punishment
--I am sure I am forgetting some

All of these should be STATE LAWS, but it seems that the feds are poking their noses in every one. Does anyone else want a return to the 10th Amendment?

Answer 1

I don't know of any candidates that are running on this platform.

I thought this used to be a Conservative ideal, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Maybe Ron Paul?? Not sure.

However, I wish that someone would.

Answer 2

Actually only the first two that you listed are Federal laws, the other three change state by state.

Also the reason the fed gov steps in is so that you can live anywhere you want and not have to move because local people dont like what you like.

I was sent an email saying that I do not understand the 10th Amendment and what it is for. The argument is as follows:

But thats what our country is SUPPOSED to be! The Federal government is only supposed to tie the states together, not make everyday decisions for them!

Prostitution is a good example. I find it morally disgusting. If I was born in Nevada, I would move to a different state where prostitution was not legal.

On the other hand, take abortion. I think it is the murder of a human being, but there is nothing I can do about it. however, if it was a state issue, it would be legal in some states, and illegal in others. if I was in a state where it was legal, I would just move to another state. problem solved.

That is what the 10th Amendment is all about, my friend.

Here is my response.

Your idea gets rid of the federal government, that is what the 10th Amendment is really about. Lets be real, it could not work. It goes against the constitutional rights of everyone, this is the real reason why the federal governement steps in, because many states would pass laws that would go against peoples consitutional rights. If a state outlaws something like abortion, and a person was forced to move because they wanted an abortion then their rights are violated. You may not like something, but that does not give you the right to make a law about it. That is you forcing your beliefs onto another person. Abortion is a religious belief (lets not forget about seperation of church and state), and by banning it you are saying that people have to believe what you do, but this country says that all people have the right to their own beliefs, and that they have the right to express themselves. If we start there then were does it end? Should we go back to segragated schools? How about owning people? Maybe we can go back to stoning and drowning people for adultry? Now you would argue that the states would not be that stupid, but I can tell you that if you researched the laws of some states you would find some of them really stupid. Like in a town in WI it is illegal to name your pig Martha, because some mayor's had a wife named Martha, and people laughed at her, so he passes a town law, talk about stupid.

Answer 3

The 10th Amendment refers to powers, not to specific laws. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create laws for the whole country - those laws have to be in accord with the Constitution, not already ennumerated explicitly within it.

The right to privacy, for instance, is impliled in the constitution, therefor, the federal government is obliged to make (Congress) and enforce (executive) laws that protect, and do not violate, that right.

That's a valid legal theory, anyway. The states rights theories aren't a lot less valid, either. The third branch of the federal government, the Supreme Court, is charged with the responsibility of judging such legal theories. For the last 30 years or so, it's been pretty consistent in setting precedents in accord with the 'loose construction' strong federal-government theories.

Answer 4

The assertion that "rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are delegated to the states" is absolutely incorrect.

There are no rights granted to United States citizens by the Constitution.

Not a one.

The Constitution was drafted to restrict the power of government, not to grant rights to American citizens. All the language in the Constitution is restrictive in nature. It doesn't talk about what WE are allowed to do; it talks about what the government is NOT allowed to do.

The founders believed that ALL human rights are our inalienable birthright. The Constitution does not grant these rights to us; it prevents the government from taking them away.

That is why people say we are protected by the Constitution. It is not a document laying down the laws of this country; it's basically a big "no-no" document for the federal government.

That doesn't mean that everything is up for legislation, and it doesn't mean that each individual state can become its own private dictatorship, as so many seem to believe.

Plus, the Constitution overrides any law made by any lawmaker in this country. So if a law is passed in a state that is deemed unConstitutional, it becomes a federal issue. (See "Terri's Law.")

Answer 5

how about the sexual discrimination case ruling that the SCOTUS just overturned? My feelings are that if we did it one way or the other, it would be fine...but you can't have it both ways. I will go with the 'return it to the state', that way abortion can remain largely legal and available, states can write it into their constitution. But the problem would still remain with things like gay marriage...leave marriage up to the states, but then you have to get rid of federal tax benefits paid to married couples...because no one's marriage would be recognizedon a federal basis anymore...I am all for that as well...
BTW, most of those ARE up to the states...abortion laws vary state to state, some have capital punishment, some don't, gays CAN marry if their state allows it..the problem lies in what I explained above, education is ruled by states, and gun control is ruled by state as well. The feds get involved if someone wants to violate the constitution...like preventing ALL gun ownership, or ANY abortions previability...

Answer 6

Me, I do! Both the 10th ammendment and the 10 commandments please.

Not only do we need a return to the original intent of the constitution, but we also need to return to the original concept of law... ordinatio rationis ad bonum commune et ab eo, qui curam communitatis habet. That is a rational ordering toward to common good and by those who have custody of the community.

The bit about the common good is what we need to return to, instead of just laws that seem to erode away at the good in the favor of so-called rights that seem to be more and more made up everyday.

Plus, remembering that the law is for the common good and not just the good of special interest reminds people that law and government aren't just concerned about protecting rights, but also promoting public responsibility to the common good.

We've lost this last part.

So, while I would like to see states have more power and the federl government have less, I would really like there to be a change in the culture of law in our country so that law would not be what defines what is good and ethical, but rather that what is for the common good and what is ethical be the standard for what is law.

Just my 2 cents.

Answer 7

I'm sure that Democrats are capable of running on a platform which includes condemning the SCOTUS for interferring in election 2000. But that's their one and only idea of when the Feds should not get involved. They love all of the rest of the ways that Feds can get involved in state issues.

Conversely, the Republicans have no complaint about the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore at all.

So neither one of the major parties are going to address the 10th Amendment issue.

Answer 8

Of course I want a return to the 10th! Unfortunately, federal corruption is big money these days. Any time politicians can invent a crisis and sell us a solution, they end up with cash in their pockets to run the next campaign, the new private jet, or build the next mansion, or whatever!

But yeah, I have no idea why people think Washington D.C. can do better than their own town hall when it comes to police/safety, education, roads, parks, and all manner of laws.

Propoganda is powerful, I guess!

Answer 9

You are absolutely right. The more different the states are the more people can live in a place they like.

Answer 10

Didn't we fight a civil war over pretty much that same issue?

Before you say, "no it was slavery," don't you mean the states' right to ignore the central government on that issue?
I am an American before a Washingtonian.