3 ms·
The 10th Amendment is not well regarded by the Supreme Court. In US v Sprague the Court said it “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified“. h
by CalChris 9y ago
The 10th Amendment is not well regarded by the Supreme Court. In US v Sprague the Court said it “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified“.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sprague https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sprague
- 24gttghh 9y agoI'm missing how that case relates to the 10th amendment, as it seems to primarily deal with Article V.
- CalChris 9y agoThe appellees tried to use the 10th and the Court said no and then further said the 10th is basically a legal truism. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/282/716.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/282/716.html
- munk-a 9y agoSorry, by "legal truism" you mean inherently enforceable because it is reinforcing a point that is taken to be true without any sort of countermand? Your statement seems self-contradictory.
- hermitdev 9y agoAdditionally, I think one could easily argue that the interstate commerce clause would prevail as States attempting to regulate interstate commerce. Otherwise, they could only enforce net-neutrality on connections entirely contained within their own state (good luck showing that's the case).
- atomi 9y agoA lot of Services are headquartered in California: Apple, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Hulu, Yahoo, Dropbox, Reddit, Imgur et al. These services could well band together and lobby very influentially to regulate neutral access to all in-state broadband traffic. I don't think it would be very smart for the telecoms to push their tier garbage in California.