The 10th Amendment, States Rights, and The Power of the Feds

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Hispeedal2, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

  2. Equilibrium

    Equilibrium Monkey++

    I don't know nearly as much about this I'd like to know but.... I'll toss in my 2ยข. I think the Feds knew exactly what they were doing when they originally charged her and they were waiting for a case like this to fall in their laps to further whittle away at our Constitutional rights. The Feds chose to charge this disgrace of a human being as they did when they could have charged her for aggravated assault and battery.... after all... it's my understanding her "victim" didn't ingest the chemicals... they were thrown on her resulting in minor burns. This woman was a microbiologist.... I suspect that if she had wanted her bestfriend or the unborn baby dead.... they would be dead right now. The woman already plead guilty to their charges which is probably going to be a big stumbling block in and of itself not to mention that only the feds can sign on to an international treaty with foreign governments. I just don't see this going our way. Sorry.... I hope we're pleasantly surprised but I don't think we will be.
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    If the case is ever heard, the decision will be very narrow, and will not affirm the 10th broadly; the narrowest possible way to construe it will come out. My guess is that it won't even be heard, it's kinda a nuisance.
  4. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

  5. Idahoser

    Idahoser Monkey+++ Founding Member

    there is no 10th Amendment while the 17th Amendment exists. States created the republic. Losing their right to leave it (1865) and their representation in it (1913) means there is no such thing as sovereign states, so there is no states' rights and the 10th is meaningless.

    This is NOT a republic.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary