Comments on: The ‘tenthers’

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:13:19 +0000

Ray, you've written some very common misconceptions here. But, don't take my word for it. You might be interested in what one of the leading experts on the framing of the Constitution has to say about these topics - including the preamble itself. Here's a recent podcast on the general welfare clause. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/19/rob-natelson-a-lesson-on-the-general-welfare-clause/

By: Ray Evans Harrell

Ray Evans Harrell — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:02:14 +0000

I just read Dave Harrell's comment. A couple of mistakes there. The Preamble is the ideal and foundation of all that follows. What follows is the "therefore" as a result of the ideal. The ideal is the seed. The seed had better have power or the document is built on sand. As for the general welfare, that is being evolved based on the growth and development of the nation in the world. Those things listed were the beginning. The Industrial era hadn't even been thought of at that time. The Time zones, the control of people lives by corporations were all to come later. All they were worried about was Aristocracy. The murder of 22 out of 25 Native Americans in the millions had not even be contemplated. Native Americans were still called "nations" by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. It would take mass murder and the Robber Barons to reduce them to Tribes. So much was to happen that to shape your opinion.

Your comments are somewhat accurate but far too limited to have meaning in the current world. The way of States Rights is the death of America in the modern world. The Europeans will just come here again, along with the Asians to graze( as they did before) and the tenthers inability to cope will have facilitated it. Pay attention to seeds. I have nephew named David.

By: A Note to the Huffington Post: Federalism Is Not ‘Progressive’ | Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:21:03 +0000

[...] despite the ignorant vitriol against “tenthers,” the state sovereignty movement is alive, well, and continuing to gain much-needed [...]

By: RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Left’s new enemy: ‘Tenthers’ - those who believe the 10th Amendment - States Rights

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:55:31 +0000

[...] Constitution, the left engages in hypocrisy. As Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center does point out, some lefties have used 10th Amendment arguments for their [...]

By: Constitutionalists vs Conservatives | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Constitutionalists vs Conservatives | Tenth Amendment Center Blog — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:07 +0000

[...] who mock us as “tenthers” because we share views identical with Thomas Jefferson repeatedly make a fatal error. They [...]

By: ki m

ki m — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:19:37 +0000

I too, am a tenther. Whew! Glad I got that off my chest! I agree with both the above posters but add this, federal gov’t has run amok with their need for power on several occasions. Can we just forget the Tuskegee incident? Ruby Ridge and Waco? Agent Orange? States have done wrong things also, but the Constitution gives us the ways to correct these things. Nobody should be considered less than a person and that includes the unborn. Nobody should ever have les rights than anyone else, but by the same token, nobody should have more. We have a right to have a gov’t free from special interests running the show and we need to make sure the federal gov’t is kept in check. It isn’t just Obama, or even Bush, it goes back years. One little program at a time that has eventually eroded the Constitution and our freedoms. This President isn’t different in that. The only exception is that he is right out front with what he is doing and desperate to get it passed before Americans wake up and put a stop to it

By: David Harrell

David Harrell — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:00:22 +0000

Ray, States can and have abused their rights, just like people. People abuse freedom of speech all the time, in my opinion. So ... does that invalidate the principle that free speech is a good thing? The fact that states abused blacks (which is what I am, by the way) does not invalidate the fact that both states and individuals must have our rights protected. If states could abuse their powers, how much more the federal government? Where would we run to then? To think that this could not occur on a federal level is to think the federal government is run by saints. (Also, to think the fedgov cannot abuse its powers is to have been asleep during the whole Bush administration.) You misread the Constitution. The preamble is merely an introduction. There are no provisions granting power such as "The president shall" or "the Congress shall." It has no legal force. In any case, generalities such as "common defense" and "general welfare" are undefined. That is more proof they have no legal force especially in light of the 10th Amendment. What "common defense" means is fleshed out later in the document via strictly enumerated powers. Same for general welfare: the ways in which the general government may provide for the general welfare are all laid out in the strictly enumerated powers spelled out in the document itself. The Constitution is not a blank check for whatever scheme the Congress, the president, the courts or the bureaucrats can dream up. Government does not have infinite powers. If it does, then we are in danger of having federal Jim Crow laws or worse -- whether against blacks, or some other politically unpopular group. (I don't think we're related btw, but who knows?)

By: Kaye

Kaye — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:17:50 +0000

My name is Kaye and I’m a “Tenther”

confession is good for the soul ‘eh?

Kaye in Oklahoma

By: Ray Evans Harrell

Ray Evans Harrell — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:03:22 +0000

Yes I remember when we had states rights in the 1940s and 50s and blacks were not allowed to spend the night in my county in Oklahoma. Ottawa Country. The state really did a complete job of banning all kinds of things including hard liquor. Still remember those disgusting little signs warning blacks who came in to entertain us not to be caught after sundown. States Rights also murdered the wealthiest minority in the world when the state mandated white guardians for rich Osage Full Bloods. Yessir, and then there was my cousin Tom Coburn. Well, he’s by marriage and none of you folks seem to have read the Preamble which sets the context for all of the rest of the document. Culture, Education, Public Health all implied but not much about market except maybe you could say that half of the preamble is against the free market because of the inequities inherent in the winner/loser market. The guarantees of the Preamble make it clear that if a state doesn’t live up to it then the recourse for the individual is federal. Maybe we should have a nationwide test to see how equal everyone is in their states.
Ray Evans Harrell

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:13:42 +0000

AntiParison, you’re right – they just don’t get it. They just seem to want to promote their own partisan interests. Principle means little to nothing.