MSNBC: Clueless about the 10th Amendment Again
13. Sep, 2009 Written by:
Michael Boldin
It’s hard to cover everything that needs to be addressed in this 6+ minute video, but I’ll touch on a few of them below.
Here’s a few observations:
1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.
2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.
3. Nullification has also been used quite recently – and effectively too. Approximately two-dozen states refused to implement the Bush-era Real ID act. And guess what – the courts aren’t needed, and neither is Congress. The law is a dead letter. Null and void.
4. Oh, and that pesky general Welfare clause. It doesn’t mean what they’re implying – at all. In fact, it was meant as a strict limitation on power. Here’s what James Madison had to say about it – “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
If my choice is the opinion of James Madision vs Jonathan Turley, I think I’m safe going with Madison.
Here’s what I think is most important…What both Olberman’s stand-in and Professor Turley get wrong is this – the 10th Amendment Movement is not about asking politicians to follow the Constitution. It’s not about getting permission from the Supreme Court to exercise our rights. It’s not about going to the federal government at all. Those are all failed strategies.
This movement is about moving back towards Constitutional governance whether they want us to or not.
Whether it’s 20+ states nullifying real ID, or 2 states nullifying some federal gun regulations, or 13 states nullifying federal marijuana laws, or states nullifying a national health care plan, this is about state-level activism. And, if enough states do it, the feds can’t do anything to stop it.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Outstanding! I just sent an email to you about an hour ago with this link. I was so pleased to see this blog entry. However, I think it would still be extremely valuable for someone to post a video response to any youtube postings of this as well as a higher profile response from a well known scholar, say on FOX’s Freedom Watch or something. Thanks!
Derek, thanks for the feedback on this! We’re definitely going to be in touch with as many of our media contacts this week as possible. The fact that Constitution day is this thursday makes it even more essential that people, finally, have a proper understanding of the role of the federal government under the constitution.
And MSNBC is not providing that.
Sad part is that there’s not many “constitutional experts” out there. Rob Natelson, Kevin Gutzman, Kurt Lash are some of the cream of the crop. The ones that get put on TV are always the ones that argue a dictatorship of supreme court decisions – not Constitutionalism.
2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court.
Ha, ha! Sometimes these clueless jokers must be a real embarassment to their field. A decent dictionary would certainly be a good start, but if you can’t understand the term “nullification” without one, I really have to wonder whether formal ‘education’ is all it’s cracked up to be.
I think Turley essentially got it right. His discussion was not complete from the perspective of what we Tenthers suggest would need to be discussed in order to have a complete dialog on the issue. Nonetheless, he didn’t say anything wrong, per se, that I recall.
It would still be good to have a “reply” video.
What Turley was totally right about is the current court view on this. But he knows full well that this is not how the founders understood these issues – and knowingly kept that out. To me, he coyly added the caveat of “under current doctrine.” to his statements. But, any constitutional expert should know that the average person doesn’t understand that and should give a little background.
While not saying anything wrong, he’s using his credentials as a “constitutional scholar” of sorts to perpetuate a skewed perspective of the Constitution. And to me, his stance on this is far more dangerous than a TV pundit – because he adds additional weight to the incorrect argument.
And, on top of it, he’s looking at nullification as completely out of context. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with how the supreme court views the tenth amendment – which is as a nuisance.
You’re right, but consider the source. If the guy was on for, say, 20 minutes – or even 10 – and these issues were brought up, we might have seen more and been satisfied. A major problem is that the media thinks America’s important issues can be covered in 3 minutes.
What we really need are more serious and thorough debates in the MSM over the 10th.
It is clear that we need to spend more time attacking the U.S. Supreme court’s supposed exclusive right to interpret the constitution to the exclusion of the people and their states. Not to mention it’s clearly written words.
They will accuse us of advocating anarchy, and we will accuse them to advocating dictatorship not upholding any written and consented to Constitutional law.
Tell them the U.S. Supreme court is but one side in a dispute of powers and rights, ceded to them by the States, A biased side which cannot be held as the just definer of winners and losers anymore then an opposing team can allowed to interpret the rules as they go. If there is any superior party here in which to resolve the dispute, it is and must be that party which originally granted the rights and powers in dispute in the first place, the people thou their States.
To say otherwise is to bind both the people and their state to an essentially unconditional union with an essentially unlimited (un-constitutional) grant of powers over them to the compete exclusion of their individual and State rights.
Tell me how is it that after having just fought a revolution to withdraw from the British union who had abused such rights, that we could possibly be persuaded to enter anther such unconditional and unlimited union?
Constitutional limited government and the right to resist such unconstitutional government (as we can clearly see for ourselves) and even if and when we feel it necessary secede from its control as a measure of that resistance is an essential natural right! We cannot and could not exist as a free people without it!
So the fact is we couldn’t have given up such an essential natural right to allow the Federal government to itself be the soul and exclusive definer of the extent of it’s own powers. Because even if we did in ratifying the Constitution, through fear, fraud or mistake, as John Adams early had put it with regard to the British constitution and Rights of the Colonists:
“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” – John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
God hate MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream sellouts… this is why I don’t own a tv..
There’s an important consideration that I haven’t seen elsewhere yet.
Only for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the media are correct about Article 1, Section 8 granting broad powers to …’provide for the general welfare…”. This clause is a part of the original Constitution of the United States and remains in full force as the absolute settled law of the land – unless Constitutionally amended.
The 10th Amendment, enacted Constitutionally and later than the original document, AMENDS the original document. Therefore, the clear statement of the 10th Amendment trumps the ambiguities of Article 1, Section 8, because the Article has now been amended.
The argument from the left seems to say that it’s the other way around. That would be like saying that the 21st Amendment has no effect because of the 18th Amendment. In reality, the 21st Amendment amends (by nullification) the 18th Amendment, just as the 10th Amendment amends Article 1, Section 8.
Just remember – the Amendment AMENDED the original document.
Great points Michael. This is a movement back to the Constitution. And as advocates for state sovereignty, we should stand firm on the principles here and, as you did, remind anyone that will listen about the history of the 10th and it’s true intention from the founder’s perspective. And, how the 10th embraces differences between states by allowing a more local government; but significantly limits the power of the federal government in Washington to intrude on people’s liver 100s and 1000s of miles away.
I can barely stand to watch MSNBC’s statist garbage.
Ron, those are excellent points, though there is one hole in the chronology argument that I can’t think of off the top of my head. Anyone?
Excellent banter! However, banter is not going to fix the problems that America faces at this point in history. Politicians, lawyers, government burearcrats have so perverted our constitution to a point that we can no longer control them. Obama said no more taxes for those under $250,000 per year. Our government will pass a socialist health care bill that will require every taxpayer to buy health insurance or get fined. Obama will get our money one way or another.
We need 33 state legislatures to demand a constitution convention. We need a 28th amendment that gives a 1 term limit on the house, the senate, and the president-6 years would by my choice. Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t do this soon, our federal government will become so large and powerfull that it will be impossible to do it later.
The time for talking about fixing our government is over. IT’S TIME TO FIX IT!
Excellent banter! However, banter is not going to fix the problems that America faces at this point in history. Politicians, lawyers, government burearcrats have so perverted our constitution to a point that we can no longer control them. Obama said no more taxes for those under $250,000 per year. Our government will pass a socialist health care bill that will require every taxpayer to buy health insurance or get fined. Obama will get our money one way or another.
We need 33 state legislatures to demand a constitution convention. We need a 28th amendment that gives a 1 term limit on the house, the senate, and the president-6 years would by my choice. Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t do this soon, our federal government will become so large and powerfull that it will be impossible to do it later.
The time for talking about fixing our government is over. IT’S TIME TO FIX IT!
Ron,
I looked into it and armed with some scholarly advice I can tell you that your point is valid indeed. The Bill of Rights AMEND the previously written constitution, including Article I section 8, which is being used as a justification for much that currently flies in the face of the constitution.
Ron and Bryce,
I’m just a informed layperson, but this point seems to hold a lot of potential for persuading many people. I wonder why I haven’t heard it used more often.
Yep, it seems silly when the right goes on a tyraid about the tenth amendment..
But these same people are for not even allowing MEDICAL marijuana on thestate level..
Very inconsistant, when it comes to defending THEIR agendas they are men of the constitution. But when the constitution stands in the way of their agenda, they simply ignore it.