Chronology is critical when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution. Recently, I have heard attacks on the 10th movement claiming that Article I section 8 trumps the 10th amendment, because it provides for the ‘general welfare’ of the nation and so “of course the Federal health care program is constitutional”.
I had a chance to chat with a scholar close to TAC this week and I asked him about conflicts between Article I sec. 8 and how it relates to the 10th Amendment and got a bit of insight. What I learned is that because the 10th came later than Article I section 8, because it amended article I and the entire preceding constitution in fact, that the 10th supercedes Article 1 sec 8 in any interpretational conflict.
When you find a debater who wants to take on the 10th amendment movement, try using this key fact to immediately shoot down the general welfare clause (Article I, section 8) as an argument for centralization.
It seems that the founders felt strongly when creating the bill of rights that it should be the final safeguard, limiting the Federal Government’s scope and power.
Beware the centralizers in corporate media and their tactics of misinformation, which they condemned just a few years back. Stand up to interpretations of the constitution that are bent to facilitate the growth of Federal power and let them know that this time, the people are not engaged in partisan business as usual.
Latest posts by Bryce Shonka (see all)
- Rhode Island Rallying Resolve to Deny NDAA - June 6, 2012
- The Futility of Federal Office - May 8, 2012
- The Establishment Media Are Clueless About the Purpose of The Constitution - April 30, 2012