The wording of the tenth amendment immediately raises two questions. What powers are reserved to the United States? And, what powers are prohibited to the States?
Searches for phrases related to the second of these two questions can be conducted using the word 'State' or 'States'. 'United States' in the first question can be considered a reference to the Federal government. 'Congress' is one word on which to base searches for phrases related to the first question.
Also, are there any powers denied the Federal government? See the first amendment. Are powers denied the Federal government delegated to it? No. Then could States Constitutionally do the things prohibited the Federal government in the First Amendment? Where in the Constitution are States prohibited from legislating free speech laws?
The tenth amendment suggests a black and white line between States rights and Federal powers. However, enforcement of the 18th amendment was to be shared by Congress (the Federal government) and the States.
This seminar is a collection of references related to States "rights" (rights in quotes because powers is a more appropriate term).
****************************When you click on the Phrases F2 button or press F2, the phrases that are displayed each describe a power delegated to the Federal government. In one case, it is an obligation of the United States to each State to 'guarantee . . . a Republican form of government'. You can press F3 and use the left and right arrow keys to move through the text to these references.
The references provided are not exhaustive.
***************************************** The phrases indexed under this heading each describe a power prohibited to the States by the Constitution.
***************************************** The indexed phrase is contained in the eighteenth amendment. Are there other powers shared by the States and the Federal Government? If you find one,
1) Choose a key word in the phrase describing the shared power.
2) Highlight it in the vocabulary list.
3) Press F2.
4) Highlight the related phrase and press ENTER.
***************************************** The relatedness of the denied or abridged phrases to this heading is clear enough. Infringed may require a little explanation.
The first amendment guarantees free speech by denying Congress the power to pass any laws regarding such. However, the first amendment specifically refers to Congress. It does not appear to limit State legislatures from passing such laws. (Have State legislatures uniformly respected free speech rights of individuals? Or have the courts interceded?)
The Constitution clearly recognizes the Federal Government, State governments, and individuals. It attempts and succeeds fairly well to define the powers of each over and against the other. Without explicitly denying the power of Congress or State legislatures to pass laws regarding arms, the second amendment clearly protects the right of individuals to own them.
At the very least, the second amendment denies to both the States and the Federal Government the power to take the citizens' arms.
***************************************** These comments are a continuation of TCNbP Company's treatise on the second amendment began in the Sample Topics seminar under the heading "A Brief Historical Overview of the 2nd Amendment".
See French Bill of Rights articles 2, 4, and 10.
See English Bill of Rights paragraphs 8 and 25.
See the preceding articles in (this) the Tenth Amendment and States Rights seminar.
TCNbP Company cites its own comments here in support of its position opposing gun regulations, under any guise. These events drawn from history's record of the long "course of human events" demonstrate that it is the individual who pursues happiness, and that it is also the individual, ultimately, who interferes with the pursuit of happiness by other individuals.
If jury trials are the last resort of the Citizenry against abuse of legislative power, then gun ownership is the last resort of the populace against the abuse of executive power.
If legislative power can be abused, and if executive power can be abused, and if judicial power can be abused, then what of the legitimate power of the Citizenry to bear arms? Yes. That can, and most certainly will, be abused, too.
But who, on the ground of possible (not to mention actual) abuse alone, advocates the abolition of the legislative branch, or of the executive branch, or of the judicial branch of government?
So why, on the ground of possible (not to mention actual) abuse alone, advocate repeal or compromise of the second amendment?
If jury trials are the last resort against legislative abuse, and if an armed populace is the last resort against executive abuse, then what is the remedy for abuse of power and rights by the members of the private Citizenry?
That remedy is in a decent, courteous, inspired, enlightened and determined Citizenry, private and official alike.
As poorly as matters economic may be for many US Citizens in the early 1990's, pursuit of happiness does not require violence of any kind, including murder, kidnaping, property violations, or breach of the peace, or treason, armed, unarmed or otherwise. The Constitution proscribes such acts, and it is up to the Citizenry at large to know that and to insist upon, support, promote and cooperate in its enforcement.
If an individual would violate one of the very loose and non restrictive constitutional and legal standards of ethical behavior described above, how likely does it appear to you that this same individual will register a gun? How likely does it appear to you that such an individual would observe a ban on certain kinds of weapons?
Will the remedy described 3 paragraphs back be achieved by disarming citizens who do observe the law?
Will that remedy be achieved by rendering criminal citizens who otherwise observe the law?
