Saturday, September 12, 2009

MSNBC: "10th Amendment is a Bunch of Baloney!"

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."
~Thomas Jefferson


Johann Van De Leeuw said...

Hey Son3,
the video doesn't work. It says: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Son3 said...

I was on the verge of posting another video in its place when I saw your comment.

Too weird!

Johann Van De Leeuw said...

How despicable is that. Come on! You're talking about the highest law of the land here - not a bunch of baloney, you airhead!!!!!

Liberty said...

Two problems I see with this man's reasoning.

#1- his argument about the 'general welfare' is viable, but doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. General welfare is stuff that helps everyone, not individuals. Healthcare, social security, etc. is for individuals. ((Not to mention the fact that for healthcare, doctors have to provide the care, etc. etc.))

#2- he ignores the rest of the first article, which clearly lays out the Constitutional powers of the US government and, specifically, Congress.

I'd like to try to find the entirety of this interview. Do you know what show this was on?

Son3 said...

Ah, Johann... vitriol! That's what I like to hear!

Liberty, exactomundo!

Your guess is as good as mine as to what show that was, as I find better things to do than watch MSNBS.

(Mainstream News Blarney Speak.)

Liberty said...

His name is David Shuster. I find his name amusing. :D

RM said...

What this inept newsman does not realize, is that the Constitution, and the private individual, are in no wise related. The united States' Constitution is a contractual document between THE SEVERAL STATES. Therefore the "general welfare" clause would without a doubt refer to (later on in the document) specifically delegated actions which would improve the general welfare of these united States. When the constitution mentions the general welfare of the united States, it is talking about the States, not the people.

He is not necessarily wrong in his main interpretation, but he is DEAD wrong in his TOTAL PRESUPPOSITIONAL THINKING ON THE CONSTITUTION.


Son3 said...

Liberty, David Shyster?

RG, believe it or not, I had the same thought. Context supports that, as well.

In fact, Patrick Henry lamented "We the People," saying it should have read "We the States," instead.

Liberty said...

Exactly Son. :P Much more apt, I think.

Websites That Make This One Possible

Ideations of a Jayhawker: Blog Policies

No vulgar, obscene, vile, or inappropriate language or insinuation may be used, and comments are subject to editing or deletion at my own discretion.

Please use proper spelling, following the rules of grammar of the English language.

The elimination of comments due to an objectionable account image may also be used at my discretion. Links given in comments that direct one to a website containing evil or unsightly content will also be deleted at my discretion.

Advocating or promoting specific acts of violence isn't allowed, but the vitriolic spewing of rants and ravings is encouraged.


Content found in this blog is public domain, and it may be used freely; permission to recreate is automatically given, I only ask that I be informed when it is copied on another website; though this is not required, it would be considered a kind gesture.

Content found at any other website that was linked to from this page is beyond my control. I strive to put out as little objectionable content as possible here, but if you do find something that you feel is inappropriate, please contact me via comment, and I will duly edit it to a degree I deem appropriate.

Quotes you may find are all sic, including spelling, grammar, etc.

Followers of this blog are more than welcome, but if you have a website that routinely displays content that you wouldn't allow a child to view or read, do not follow this blog unless you have a blogger warning previous to entering your website.
Failure to do so may result in being blocked from the followers list.

A follower may also be blocked if your account image is found to be objectionable.