Tenth Amendment question?

Question

Why do people assume that the 10th Amendment allows individual states to take away people's rights?

The Constitution is a document designed to restrict governmental authority; why do people assume the 10th Amendment was put into place to give the states more authority than the federal government?

The states do not represent the people. And the people are supposed to be more powerful in this country than the government.

Answer 1

Exactly, federal will always override state. If you want an example, look at the repeal of S. Dakota's abortion ban.

Answer 2

The Tenth Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, were originally enacted to limit the power of the federal government. The concern at the time was that a national government would take away rights from the states, or the people. So in that sense the amendment was indeed "put into place to give the states more authority than the federal government."

After the Civil War, much of the concern was that the federal government needed to protect the people from the states. So, over time, just about all of the protections of the Bill of Rights were applied to state action as well as federal action.

So today states may not limit rights where the Constitution grants them to the people. There are still some (limited) areas where the federal government cannot intervene on state authority, but they often influence states by providing or withholding funds. The federal government cannot force every state to enact a seat belt law on its local roads, but it can appropriate highway funds only to those states that do. So it's a financial coercion.

I disagree that states do not represent people, but no a state law may not conflict with the federal constitution.

Interesting question!

PS The 14th Amendment is the mechanism by which the Bill of Rights is applied by the states. this is half-remembered Constitutional law from 20 years ago, but a decent enough thumbnail sketch.

Answer 3

The only people who would claim that are either deliberately misrepresenting the principles of the founding or were brainwashed by the 20th century centers of "Progressive" indoctrination, better known as the Public School system. The inference comes from one of the justifications used by the South for secession. Because "Progressives" have no justifiable argument against the logical conclusion that each state explicitly retained its sovereignty and ability to change its government when it so chooses, at the time of ratification; they shift the focus to their default charge for whenever they are losing an argument - racism. Ultimately, the individual Southern states were within their rights in seceding and the federal government exercised a power not granted by the states. Conversely, the North exercised a power that no state would have ever delegated. No state accepted the Constitution under the condition that the Federal Government had the authority to invade its borders and destroy its economy. The fact that the cause of the North was noble and that the Union was successful in quelling the rebellion does not negate the principle involved. Slavery was a disgusting and horrible institution and is a deserved black eye on American History; however, the only thing worse would be trading slavery for a new form of slavery wherein everyone is forced to act in accordance with the wishes of tyrants. Even the North was not fighting for that. The use of the term by the segregationists was based on the fact that the enumerated powers of the Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to regulate those specific policies within states. The argument follows that the court system of the states and ultimately the Supreme Court would have struck down most of the segregationist policies. The problem is not necessarily with the principle or logic, it is with the deeply rooted, bitter hatred that drove the segregationists. "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 principles involved could not be more clear: Each state voluntarily joined the Union. Each state recognized that, unless specifically noted in the contract (Constitution), the federal government had no authority to exercise a power. Each state recognized that their sovereignty remained in tact because, as a principle of Natural Law, no government had the authority to dissolve it. The amendment itself is a revision of the provision of the Articles of Confederation that states: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." There is nothing racist about the 10th amendment. Just to throw them off, start quoting the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The central premise of the "Progressives" is that if the Constitution does not say you can or cannot do something, then politicians must find a way to redefine Constitutional provisions to convince judges to allow government expansion. Additionally, the words written by the founders may have been written with concrete principles in mind, but if you redefine a word that was used in the Constitution to fit your point, the Constitution then supports your action even if it directly contradicts the principle involved. To "Progressives" this in no way eliminates the point of ever writing down a Constitution in the first place, let alone separation and limitation of powers. To thinking people, the contradiction could not be more clear. The central premise of the Founders was that under Natural Law, humans have a right to Life, Liberty, and Private Property. Government was created by free people to protect those rights and history had proven that when government is not strictly limited, the people lose freedom. Government can not provide what predates its existence. Any government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything away. Therefore, if the people and states did not delegate a power to the federal government, it cannot assume the power unless the people and states amend the Constitution to freely surrender the power.

Answer 4

The 10th Amendment reserves rights to the states that were not given to the federal government in the Constitution. For example, the states regulate marriage, property rights, basic criminal law, etc.

The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, extended the guarantee of certain constitutional protections for individuals against state action.

Answer 5

The tenth amendment guarantees the rights of states to enact laws not directly prohibited by the Constitution.

Like Abortion, for example.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention any RESEMBLANCE to this right. Therefore, the matter should be left up tot the states, per the 10th Amendment. But it is not.

Answer 6

Well, lets see
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
You say the states do not represent the people to which I counter 1) the founders thought they did, better than the feds would; 2) exactly who do you think they represent? The states control education and property taxes, licensing of professionals and recording of deeds (often done at county level, even closer to the people.) Originally, senators were elected/appointed by the state legislatures, not the people and the president was voted in by the electors (technically still is) not by direct election of the "people" who were not trusted to think things through.
"or to the people." Nuff said.

Answer 7

The 10th ammendment was intended to sort of announce the Bill of Rights as a statement restricting Congress and the President to the powers granted them by the constitution. In the last 30 years the ammendment has been used for cover not intended by the original draft.

Answer 8

Actually the Constitution delegates authority to the states.

Answer 9

"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."

So what can't you understand?

Answer 10

I believe that this thing called the Patriot Act has kind of screwed things up. The people are now at their mercy.