The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

13 February 2011

Before you vote, pin down your state legislator -- where are they on the Tenth Amendment?

...and make sure they know your vote is awarded or denied based on their answer.
Recurring themes of this blog, just as relevant now as in the 1830's:
"At the core of the debate was the clash between two distinct theories of the Constitution:  the nationalists view of a single sovereign people, a modern unitary state were power comes from a central authority, or the compact theorists who believe the United States  had been formed when the thirteen original states each acting in its own sovereign capacity ratified the Constitution through STATE ratifying conventions rather than some single American people.
Senator Daniel Webster argued that upon entering the Union, states surrender certain powers to the general government and that the general government itself is the final arbiter of their power.  However, Senators Calhoun, Haynes and Rowan argued that the states never surrendered, but delegated power to the general government and one does not delegate to a greater authority, but to a lesser one.  And the general government is not the final arbiter of its own powers “since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers” and that “each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well as infractions, as of the make and measure of redress”. 

No comments:

Post a Comment