Monday, March 11, 2019

Capitalism, socialism and economics

Opinion by Allan McNew

I have tried my best to understand economics, I think most people view economics as whether they have enough at the end of the month, or if they have some left over do they blow it on instant gratification or do they stuff it in the mattress for the future rainy day. I compare my perceptions of capitalism with my perceptions of socialism and have mixed feelings. I am reminded of a man who stated “When I was in college, I was a communist. When I opened a business I became a capitalist.” I believe many, if not most, people associate the word “capitalism” with fat 19th century corporatist millionaires lighting prohibitively high priced Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills while gleefully forcing widows and orphans to freeze and starve in the dark.

To me, capitalism is the exchange of something of value for something else of value in order to gain increase, usually involving currency in exchange for an item or measurement of time while providing labor or a service. By this definition we are all capitalists, including all those “communist” professors who force their students to purchase expensive multiple books for an advanced class – which are virtually rewritten clones (heavily citing the previous works) of previous expensive books those professors forced the same students to purchase for prerequisite classes. Unbridled capitalism is heartless with loyalty only to a perceived bottom line – and self professed “communists” can be very capitalistic. Witness the People’s Republic of China which sells us cheap, shoddy goods produced by virtual slave labor while lending us our own money they derive by trade imbalance and use to buy up various forms of real estate and financial institutions in the United States – property speculation, usurious profit and gaining by being unscrupulous landlords.

For example, when a small, labor intensive business rents a building, the landlord leaves the leaseholder with just enough to get by, and he doesn’t intend to leave him with any more. Or supply and demand: when uneducated, unskilled shovel holders and burger flippers are allowed to pour into the country that results in displacing and driving down the wages of previous shovel holders and burger flippers who were originally part of a smaller, more stable labor pool.

On the other hand, Utopian theory of socialism (which Marx theorized was a precursor to communism) strikes me as where the patrons of a saloon run off the proprietor, dismiss the bartenders and establish an open bar with the patrons on the honor system. It’s not going to work, socialism as theorized is impossible due to human nature.

So, coercion combined with propaganda and censorship is needed to to level society and make everyone equal, and coercion involves punishment with ostracism, being deprived of making a living or by incarceration. That is, except for the more equal, supremely privileged oligarchy self appointed to oversee the socialist program. Which in effect is not much different than Gilded Age style robber barons having complete social control over the population. Breadlines down the street and around the block in an extreme capitalist dominated society is no different than the same breadlines in an extreme socialist dominated society. The bread runs out before those in the back of the line can exchange their meager cash or ration tickets for bread.

But, socialism parasitically depends on capitalism. The perfect example is that if not for his rich capitalist family providing him with maintenance and occupation, Friedrich Engles would have starved in the streets while denouncing capitalism. Engles used some of that capitalist money to compensate Karl Marx for sitting on his posterior and writing about social-economic theory. A rough modern example could equate modern Silicone Valley billionaires as Engles and progressive-socialist politicians in the Democrat Party as Marx – adding the cynical Gilded Age corporate observation that “An honest politician is one who, when bought, will stay bought” and, like the pigs in “Animal Farm”, seek to become part of an intolerant, no dissent allowed, ruling oligarchy. Marx was interested in stroking his beard and scribbling improbable theory rather than being a hypocritical autocrat.

Socialists who hide behind the “progressive” label, such as Ocasio Cortez, live in a theoretical dream world and have no idea of the real world beyond their farcical perception of what society is and what it should be. A year ago I perceived House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be a far left wing nut- she now looks positively right of center compared to Ocasio Cortez and her hypocritical wacky cohort of female freshman congressional politicians, and they, far more than the underhanded, disrespectful, self superior house speaker are ruthlessly not afraid to hold the figurative coercive political gun against the head of anyone who has has a different viewpoint of any sort and pull the trigger.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Win the Culture with Salt and Light


Stossel with Jordan Peterson on "Social Justice" and "Hate Speech"

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Saturday, March 09, 2019

Constitution Radio: Back to Constitutional Basics

We are not supposed to be a democracy, but the liberal left Democrat Party is doing all it can to make us one.

Why?

Because democracy is the road to socialism.

Constitution Radio airs on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 1:00 pm.

Listen live online at www.kmet1490am.com

Listen to the podcast later at https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

We are always seeking new advertisers and donors.

Today's CARSTAR/AllStar Collision big stories of the week:

... Walk Away


... CPAC



... Civil War, or Foreign Invasion?


... Pursuit of Happiness


... Sex Ed Curriculum


... Smollett Guilty


... Venezuela's End

Chino Tea Party: Guest Speaker, Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday, March 9

Social time: 9:00 to 9:30 am
Meeting called to order at 9:30

No host breakfast

Location:
Archibald's Drive-Thru
15421 Fairfield Ranch Road
Chino Hills, CA

Thursday, March 07, 2019

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Temecula Constitution Class: Moralists and Modernizers


Wednesday
6:00 pm
GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com



Lesson 20

Prohibition, Women’s Voting Rights, Election Rules
Prohibition
Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.

Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers.  Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America.  The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement.  The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.

Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808.  It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created.  As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up.  Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance.  Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.

The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges.  The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them.  Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:

"We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."

Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge.  One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment.  If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name.  The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence".  Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.

Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.

Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law.  Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation.  As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle.  Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities.  Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.

As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement.  The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America.  The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States.  Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.

In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs.  Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs.  There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana.  If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress.  By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol).  The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment.  This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.

Terms:
Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.

Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.

Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.

Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited.  Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?

2.  What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?

3.  What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)

4.  What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?

5.  What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted?  Why?

6.  What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?

7.  What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?

8.  In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?

9.  What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?


Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)

Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)

The Temperance Movement, US History.com;
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html

Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America’s Pre-Civil War
Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)

Women’s Voting Rights
The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide.  It was ratified on August 18, 1920.

Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment.  In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote.  Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.

The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections.  The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide.  The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification.  It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.

Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women’s suffrage to her plate.  By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.

The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new.  Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, was a fervent believer in women’s rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences.  His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.

John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women’s freedoms.  As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice.  In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency.  And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.  Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.  Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.  If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty.  However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.

Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.

After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%.  Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.

During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight.  The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%.  The boom for women was short-lived, however.  When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.

Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%.  However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit.  With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women’s rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.

The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice.  Women in today’s society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both.  For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice. 

Terms:
Women’s Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office.  The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?

2.  How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women’s suffrage?

3.  On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?

4.  How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?

5.  How has the Women’s Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?

Resources:
Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment; http://www.essortment.com/aaron-
burr-biography-20550.html

Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies", History.com;
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies

Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W.
Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)

David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)

W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day
Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985; http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-role-of-women-in-healing-america/

Election Rules
Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.

The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4.  Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session.  A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.

The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.

Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year.”  The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today’s legislators.

The 20th Amendment’s Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office.  The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office.  Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office.  In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President.  “Failing to qualify for office” refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President.  A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one.  As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.

Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President.  The more astute student may recall that today’s constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.

The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion.  Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, “shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.”  If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election.  The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s victory in the 1932 Election.  FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.

In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission.  The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment).  The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely.  The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.


Terms:

Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor’s term begins.

Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?

2.  In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?

3.  Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?


Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)

United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm


Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Corona Constitution Class: Natural Rights and States Rights

Tuesday Night 6:00 pm at AllStar/CARSTAR Collision
522 Railroad St., Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

 
 
 
Lesson 16
 
Rights and State Sovereignty
 
A Protection of Rights Not Enumerated, 9th Amendment
The Bill of Rights was created to appease the Anti-Federalists, but many of the Framers envisioned possible dangers in its creation. In fact, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84 suggested that there existed the possibility of misinterpretations that may place the rights of the people in danger from an overpowering federal government. In Federalist #84 Hamilton suggested that government may create exceptions to powers not granted, and argue the power exists because it is not denied by the Bill of Rights. In other words, because the Constitution was designed to grant authorities, and those not listed are not granted, the Bill of Rights muddies the waters because those amendments tell the federal government what it can't do. Furthermore, many of the delegates in the Federal Convention of 1787 argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary, because prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights, the federal government was not given the authorities by the first seven articles over any of the issues listed in those first ten amendments in the first place.
 
Regardless, the Anti-Federalists demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, or they would not ratify the document. Needing the support of the Anti-Federalists in order for the Constitution to be made law, the Founding Fathers that were at odds with the creation of the Bill of Rights compromised, and James Madison was given the task to write out the Bill of Rights based on proposals received from the several States.
 
Hundreds of proposed amendments were offered by the States. Only twelve were considered. Ten were ratified by the States during that time period. Answering concerns of the Founding Fathers that the federal government may interfere with rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, the 9th Amendment was included as one of those ten.
 
The Founders expected the people to protect their own rights through self-government. With freedom comes responsibility, therefore the people, when it came to their rights, should be governed by their conscience, not government. This concept tasked the people, with their individual judgment, to be civil, and to not encroach on one another's freedoms. If citizens were guilty of violating someone else's rights, the civil court system in each State would address the issue. Local courts were controlled by juries, and left all issues regarding rights at the local level.
 
The very notion of the federal government putting itself into a position of encroaching on the rights of the people was seen as tyrannical, and dangerous. After all, how could a centralized, far removed, governmental power that is unfamiliar with local customs and laws properly administer private rights issues?
 
The problem presented by the Bill of Rights, however, is that by listing specific rights that the government shall not infringe upon, many of the founders believed that would open up the opportunity for the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution to mean that all other rights not listed are fair game. Therefore, the wording of the 9th Amendment was carefully fashioned to enable the reader to recognize its intent.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
In other words, the government cannot "deny or disparage" any rights, even the ones not listed in the Bill of Rights, because our rights are given to us by God. This does not give the federal government the authority to guarantee our rights, however. To allow a central government to force lower governments to abide by the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is to open the door for government to later dictate to the lower governments other actions they would have to take regarding rights. Since rights, as the Declaration of Independence reveals, are "self-evident," as well as individual possessions, the authority to resolve disputes regarding rights remains at the local level.
Terms:
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
 
Federal Government - System of government in which power is distributed between central authority and constituent territorial units.
 
Federalist Papers - Series of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton defending, and explaining the principles of, the Constitution in order to encourage the New York Ratifying Convention to decide to ratify the Constitution.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why were the Anti-Federalists so worried about the creation of the federal government through the Constitution?
 
2. Who gives us our rights? Why is this significant?
 
3. What are the dangers of enabling the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution?
 
Resources:
 
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
State Sovereignty
"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 10th Amendment was designed to restrict federal powers from encroaching on State authorities. The article states that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, and any powers not prohibited to the States, belongs to the States.
 
We must remember that originally all powers belonged to the States, a concept known as Original Authority. In order to create a central government, the States granted some of their powers to the federal government so that it may function in the manner necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union. The States, in Article I, Section 10, are denied powers that would be in conflict with the federal powers granted. However, since the States originally maintained all powers, any authorities not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States for the purpose of enabling the federal government to do its job, were retained by the States.
 
The 10th Amendment was also designed to correct the problems that arose through the creation of the Bill of Rights. By the Bill of Rights being composed in such a manner that the first ten amendments tell the federal government what it cannot do, the worry was that the argument in support of unconstitutional activity by the federal government would entail the argument, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?" Such an argument by the central government may open up opportunities for the federal government to compromise Americanism, and fundamentally transform into a big government tyranny.
 
The Constitution was designed to grant authorities to the federal government so that it may function in the manner originally intended. The powers granted to the federal government are the only authorities the federal government has. If the powers are not enumerated, the federal government does not have those authorities. The 10th Amendment was written to remind us that even though the first eight amendments tell the federal government it "shall not infringe," the rule of the Constitution is that all federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution, and if the power is not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States, the authority remains with the States.
 
This article was written to support State Sovereignty. It is the Tenth Amendment to which one must first go when debating States' Rights. The amendment clearly states that all federal powers are enumerated, and the remaining unlisted powers, if not prohibited, belongs to the States.
 
James Madison makes a clear argument in support of the concept of State Sovereignty in Federalist #45: ". . . each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments. . . The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. . ."
 
The States serve in a manner similar to that of parents. The people, through their States are the parents of the federal government, but the petulant child is not only acting in ways never authorized, but the parents, through representation, and other means, have determined for themselves that they have no ability to rein in the out of control creation. The 10th Amendment reveals the reality that the States are sovereign, and that the federal government has only limited powers.
 
When breaking down the language of the Tenth Amendment, the previous articles of the Constitution become clear. It is in the Tenth Amendment that the principles of a limited government are most clearly articulated.
 
The concept that the Constitution was designed not to tell the federal government what it cannot do, but to tell it what it can do, is presented clearly in the first portion of this amendment. Powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are not authorities granted, meaning that the federal government is limited to only the powers enumerated by the Constitution.
 
Some powers, despite the fact that original authority of all powers belongs to the States, are prohibited to the States. The authorities prohibited to the States are those that, if the States had those powers, may interfere with the federal government's task of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. The list of powers prohibited to the States, any amendments doing the same notwithstanding, are located in Article I, Section 10.
 
The word reserved was chosen carefully for this amendment. "Reserved" is used rather than the word "granted," because the States are not granted any powers by any source. All of the powers already belonged to the States from the beginning. Any powers the States did not grant to the federal government, nor decide to prohibit to themselves through the Constitution, remain with the States. The presence of the word "reserved" reveals that fact. Reserved, in the context of this article, also means "To hold for their own use."
Terms:
 
Americanism - A philosophy of freedom that actively seeks less government and more personal responsibility.
Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
 
Reserved - Kept for another or future use; retained.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
States' Rights - The authorities of the States over local issues, and other issues, that are not directly related to the preservation of the union or are considered as federal issues.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why was it important to ensure the federal government did not encroach on State authorities?
 
2. What did Madison mean when he wrote, "the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments."
3. Why is it important that the enumerated powers limit the authorities of the federal government?
4. How does the fact that the States have original authority in regards to all powers bring into perspective the relationship between the States and the federal government?
 
5. Why was the word "reserved" used in the Tenth Amendment, rather than granted?
 
Resources:
 
About the Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/about-the-tenth-amendment/
Definition of Enumerated, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,enumerate
Definition of Reserved, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,reserved
James Madison, The Federalist Papers #45, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Thirty Enumerated Powers, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs