| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| blog:the_way_to_implement_the_10th_amendment [2015/11/12 20:26] – Oliver Wolcott | blog:the_way_to_implement_the_10th_amendment [2015/11/12 20:29] – Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| But for true conservatives whose goal is to conserve the original design of our federal system, the far more fundamental problem with this type of in-your-face nullification is the fact that it was not the Founders' plan. | But for true conservatives whose goal is to conserve the original design of our federal system, the far more fundamental problem with this type of in-your-face nullification is the fact that it was not the Founders' plan. |
| |
| /* [[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi|Article Six]]*/[[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_vi|Article Six]] tells us that the Constitution, and federal laws passed pursuant to it, are the "supreme law of the land." Under /*[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii|Article Three]]*/[[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_iii|Article Three]], the United States Supreme Court is considered to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. While some claim that this was not the Founders' intention, historical records such as Alexander Hamilton's /*[[http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html|Federalist 78]]*/[[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist78|Federalist 78]] demonstrate it was, in fact, the judiciary that they intended to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts. | [[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_vi|Article Six]] tells us that the Constitution, and federal laws passed pursuant to it, are the "supreme law of the land." Under [[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_iii|Article Three]], the United States Supreme Court is considered to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. While some claim that this was not the Founders' intention, historical records such as Alexander Hamilton's [[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist78|Federalist 78]] demonstrate it was, in fact, the judiciary that they intended to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts. |
| |
| And then we have the 10th Amendment itself. It establishes a //principle//, but it does not establish a //remedy//or //process// for protecting the reserved powers from federal intrusion. | And then we have the 10th Amendment itself. It establishes a //principle//, but it does not establish a //remedy//or //process// for protecting the reserved powers from federal intrusion. |
| |
| That missing process is found in /*[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev|Article Five]]*/[[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_v|Article Five]]. Faced with a federal government acting beyond the scope of its legitimate powers—and a Supreme Court that adopts erroneous interpretations of the Constitution to justify the federal overreach—the states' constitutional remedy is to //amend //the Constitution to clarify the meaning of the clauses that have been perverted. In this way, the states can assert their authority to close the loopholes the Supreme Court has opened. | That missing process is found in [[historicaldocuments:constitution#article_v|Article Five]]. Faced with a federal government acting beyond the scope of its legitimate powers—and a Supreme Court that adopts erroneous interpretations of the Constitution to justify the federal overreach—the states' constitutional remedy is to //amend //the Constitution to clarify the meaning of the clauses that have been perverted. In this way, the states can assert their authority to close the loopholes the Supreme Court has opened. |
| |
| You don't have to take my word for it. | You don't have to take my word for it. |
| |
| In an 1830 /*[[http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm|letter]]*/[[historicaldocuments:letters:everett1830|letter]] to Edward Everett, James Madison said: | In an 1830 [[historicaldocuments:letters:everett1830|letter]] to Edward Everett, James Madison said: |
| |
| <WRAP round box 60%> | <WRAP round box 60%> |
| |
| |
| In other words, Article Five is the //ultimate //nullification procedure. For states that have the will to stand up and assert their 10th Amendment rights, they can do so by /*[[https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/142/attachments/original/1410009563/Application-for-a-Convention-of-States-v.5.pdf?1410009563|applying]]*/[[documents:cosproject:cosapplication|applying]] for an Article Five convention to propose amendments that restrain federal power. | In other words, Article Five is the //ultimate //nullification procedure. For states that have the will to stand up and assert their 10th Amendment rights, they can do so by [[documents:cosproject:cosapplication|applying]] for an Article Five convention to propose amendments that restrain federal power. |
| |
| //Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.// | //Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.// |
| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------- |
