Shuster: Tenth Amendment is a Bunch of Baloney
11. Sep, 2009 
11 Comments
From NewsBusters.org “MSNBC’s Shuster: Tenth Amendment a ‘Baloney’ Issue That Appeals to Right-wing Fringe” (h/t Bob Greenslade)
Clearly Dave is mis-informed. Or, he’s a straight-faced liar. Either way, as far as Constitutional understanding goes, this guy is as clueless – and dangerous – as it gets.
Here’s some introductory reading on the subject:
The Original Meaning of an Omission
And a podcast too:
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
There is NO mandate that allows the Feds to force health insurance on anyone.
Shuster is full of baloney, someone needs to educate that idiot! If the 10th Amendment has no real meaning, is just “baloney”, then why did the Founders include it in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights at all?
The poor guy is confused because of the atrocious SCt opinion that held Social Security is Constitutional because of the General Welfare clause. Unfortunately, the “highest” court in the land took that blatantly idiotic approach, and its actions legitimized a previously ridiculous form of “logic.”
What Shuyster seems to have forgotten is the nature of Constitutional AMENTMENTS—for that matter, of amendments to anything. As an amendment, the Tenth Article of the Bill of Rights SUPERSEDES any and all statements whatever, whether express or implied, in any prior amendment or in the body of the text. As a Constitutional Expert™, his arguments are cut from whole cloth and trimmed with lace and buttons from the king’s new clothes.
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.
Liberals are quick to dismiss constitutionalists as arguing con law areas that they contend are settled law because of Supreme Court precedent. But at the same time, they embrace Court decisions when it over turns precedent in what they deem to be a “more progressive manner.” So, like all advocates of a living, breathing Constitution, the document becomes nothing more than a changing justification for whatever it is they personally believe. Now you tell me what’s baloney?