simmonsjoe
Regular Member
I e-mailed Bill a question about the 10A. He will be covering it tomorrow.
It will be streaming live 10-11:00am Central time.
If you miss it, check the archives later in the day.
---------my email -------------
I keep reading the 10th amendment, and I am greatly confused. I keep hearing, the BOR only limits the Federal Gov't. On a logical level, I simply don't believe it.
10A: "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."
Why would you need to 'restrict' federal power at all? It has absolutely nothing but what the States agree to delegate in order to be a member of the Union. You cannot delegate a power you do not possess.
If it is true that the BOR only effects the Federal Gov't, then the whole issue of 'incorporation' becomes a huge quandary to me.
If the 2A is incorporated against the States, then they no longer have the authority to delegate powers over bearing arms to the Fed. That would mean the incorporation of the 2A would be invalid. It's like dividing by zero, (which only Chuck Norris can do.)
So I am left with the conclusion that the whole issue about restricting the Fed govt is a scam. It implies the Fed govt can do anything not restricted to it. Have we been duped?
Obviously this disagrees with common wisdom. Where am I going wrong here? How is it possible for the constitution to restrict the Fed gov't, and have the Fed gov't dictate powers to the states, given the 10th amendment?
To me the 10A disproves almost all of the bullshit we hear about state/federal interaction, and how power is distributed. Then again I don't know the historical information regarding how this was intended when written. I would really appreciate if you could cover this on air[...]
Thanks,
---------------------------------
It will be streaming live 10-11:00am Central time.
If you miss it, check the archives later in the day.
---------my email -------------
I keep reading the 10th amendment, and I am greatly confused. I keep hearing, the BOR only limits the Federal Gov't. On a logical level, I simply don't believe it.
10A: "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."
Why would you need to 'restrict' federal power at all? It has absolutely nothing but what the States agree to delegate in order to be a member of the Union. You cannot delegate a power you do not possess.
If it is true that the BOR only effects the Federal Gov't, then the whole issue of 'incorporation' becomes a huge quandary to me.
If the 2A is incorporated against the States, then they no longer have the authority to delegate powers over bearing arms to the Fed. That would mean the incorporation of the 2A would be invalid. It's like dividing by zero, (which only Chuck Norris can do.)
So I am left with the conclusion that the whole issue about restricting the Fed govt is a scam. It implies the Fed govt can do anything not restricted to it. Have we been duped?
Obviously this disagrees with common wisdom. Where am I going wrong here? How is it possible for the constitution to restrict the Fed gov't, and have the Fed gov't dictate powers to the states, given the 10th amendment?
To me the 10A disproves almost all of the bullshit we hear about state/federal interaction, and how power is distributed. Then again I don't know the historical information regarding how this was intended when written. I would really appreciate if you could cover this on air[...]
Thanks,
---------------------------------
Last edited: