Talk:Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Protected page against further vandalism
Hi, this page looks severely 'screwed' as it were - it keeps getting little bits of irrelevant text tacked onto it, along with text being defaced and removed. I have protected the page from new users because of this. I'm unable to fix the (*)(*) under the commerce paragraph, as I'm unsure of its a) purpose and b) what is supposed to be there. EDIT: Are protections for pages supposed to be requested? This wasn't exactly clear when I added the template. In case they are, I apologise, and I didn't intend this as vandalism or any other such thing. I simply wanted to stop the constant stream of trash being added to the article.
DavidR1991 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hackers have vandalized the page
I've looked into the editing and cannot find the hacks. So I looked into the code and found where they hacked the system. You have a problem now that little punks have gotten into your system.
Update: seems that I looked into the page when someone was fixing it. Looks like you guys just need to keep people without accounts (like me) and those with new accounts from being able to edit these areas.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.228.146.226 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] This is vandalism?
Why does it say "this is vandalism" in the first paragraph? Could someone correct this please? I dont want to remove it incase its *supposed* to be there. -Habbzz EDIT:sorry someone has removed it as i typed this
[edit] Word switching and myspaceTM reference
Has anyone noticed that the wording in the Amendment itself is incorrect? Get out your copy of the Constitution and see. The words "delegated" and "reserved" are switched. An Admin, Dustimagic, blocked editing of the page purposefully so that it would remain that way. Could some other admin PLEASE shut off the protection and correct this?
Why is "This was introduced August 29th, 1990. Elaina Peets married Parker Zickel. They had 12 childern and 9 cats. They loved their kitties so much they made a myspace for them." in the article?
[edit] Neutrality
This article has some NPOV problems, in that its language describes broad interpretations of the amendment as a conspiracy. It needs to be explained better, in a less antagonistic tone. Mateo SA | talk 03:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the tone of the paragraph that I believe was the biggest problem (The one that talked about Congress circumventing the 10th amendment). It now is written to reflect that this is the view of some, not that it is a fact. I think the tone is now neutral, and have removed the NPOV flag. Kenj0418 19:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] commerce clause not needed
the discussion of the commerce clause is important in the discusion of US federalism but it is not related to the tenth amendment. it should be moved somwhere else or at least shortened considerably
- The 10th amendment is the reason the commerce clause is used in this way. Because of the 10th amendment Congress must only use the powers expressly granted, and the commerce clause was able to bend the most. -- Myria 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
A casual mention of the commerce clause would suffice. There is a Commerce Clause page, by the way. The discussion of United States v. Lopez should not be on this page at all:
"This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment. " --71.223.215.121 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "or to the people"
I've wondered for a long time about the phrase "or to the people". Is that an explicit statement that "anything not illegal is legal", that you can only be charged with a crime that was passed as a law (or inherited in common law)? -- Myria 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- English common law does operate on the basis that anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed, as I recall. Hence this supposition seems on the mark. 71.198.127.97 09:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re-Organize history and caselaw
I was thinking about re-organizing this page so that forced participation is at the top of the “History and Case Law” section. My reasoning is that it is the only case where the Supreme Court has ever invalidated a law for violating the Tenth Amendment; Commerce Clause and Tax and Spend power are only areas where one might suspect that the Tenth Amendment would come into play, but does not. Any thoughts? --Skeenbr0 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Police Powers
This amendment basically allows states police powers and gives them the ability to legislate morality, as decided by Lochner v. New York. Its very important and I dont see why its not on here. MasonicLamb 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The best way to get that done would be to write the section yourself. The beauty (and the point, really), of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it. Go to! --Skeenbr0 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction
The article first claims that the 1985 case of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled 10th Amendment claims non-justiciable, and that this case remains controlling precedent. The article later goes on to say that in a 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court struck down a law on the basis of the 10th Amendment, indicating that 10th-Amendment claims are justiciable (and successfully pursuable, at that). Which is it? --Delirium 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is the 10th even relevant anymore?
It seems to me we fought a war in the 1860s that stated that the Federal government can overrule the states if they exercise the 10th amendment. Any mention of secession or leaving the Union was explicitly left out of the Constitution's wording, as the states at the time were wary of the new form of government and what would come of it (New York and Rhode Island come to mind). As it was intentionally left out, it was a right reserved to the states and the people. I applaud the fact that Lincoln had a hand in ending slavery, but he dealt a deathly blow to the 10th Amendment. 71.198.127.97 09:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moved Forced Participation
I thought it made more sense to discuss those cases that actually use the tenth amendment before getting on to the commerce clause and tax and spend cases, since those cases simply show how Congress has used powers that it was granted to exert power over the states. (I do not discuss at this time the wisdom of such actions; I only think that we ought to put the actual Tenth Amendment cases at the top, rather than leave them as an afterthought). --Skeenbr0 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
