5 ms·

The tenth amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States re

• fwlr 4y ago
  Wikipedia claims Congress has passed over 30,000 statues in its time. That is however many millions of words worth of edifice and cruft surrounding the Constitution and subtly altering its meaning and influence over time. (That’s the mechanism by which Federal law has granted itself this power. Whether it should have is another question, of course.)
• mpweiher 4y ago
  Usually: the commerce clause.
  • metiscus 4y ago
    Wickard v. Filburn[1] effectively took nearly all of the constitutional scope limits off of the federal government. All the government needs to justify interference in the most mundane of human interactions is to find a broader economic nexus in the activity. Summarized "The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To this extent, the opinion went against prior decisions that had analyzed whether an activity was local, or whether its effects were direct or indirect."[2] [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ [2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
    • LocalH 4y ago
      One of the single worst decisions in US judicial history.
• notch898a 4y ago
  Probably the same part that says it is interstate commerce to grow a pot plant and then smoke all of it 5 feet away from where it is planted.
  • NewJazz 4y ago
    The day SCOTUS defined subsistence agriculture as interstate commerce was the day "states' rights" became a complete joke. The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Oh you grow your own food so you don't contribute to the profits of huge conglomerates? Not without the Feds' permission!
• encryptluks2 4y ago
  Federal Laws can in fact preempt state laws but in this case I believe they got it completely wrong and intentionally wrong at that. Business owners love arbitration and for good cause. It is much easier to manipulate the arbitration system than courts.
  • mrguyorama 4y ago
    It's contracting! You don't even have to manipulate it because every arbitration company will compete to be more favorable to the people paying them!
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  The Federal Government merely tolerates the states, as it derives its power from them and their delegates. But it has functionally subjugated them all and can sanction them all, almost the same way as it does to any foreign country. The Supremacy clause is a power delegated to the Unites States by the Constitution The Interstate commerce clause is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution The framers in 1790 did not predict that all commerce would be interstate commerce. Anything that the Federal Government allows to be the sole domain of the States is pure generosity, for quite some time. The United States is a collection of states, and simultaneously a Federal Government of the same geographical shape overlaid. There is very little "federalism" or collaboration, it is Federal in name alone. Just a separate entity thats more well funded and resourceful than any individual state, or the collection of all the states.