4 ms·

The history of the first two centuries of the US is one where the powers that the states initially retained were gradually moved into the Federal government. M

The history of the first two centuries of the US is one where the powers that the states initially retained were gradually moved into the Federal government. My evidence is literally several decades of early SCOTUS rulings... The primacy of the federal government over the states was well established during the lifetime of the Constitution's signers. Chisholm v Georgia (1793), Ware v. Hylton (1796), Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee (1816), McCulloch v Maryland (1819). uses almost the exact inverse of the language you use to take all powers not explicitly granted the Federal government and grant them instead to the states: The 10th Amendment was regarded then, as it is now, as a sop to the states to give them the illusion that any "remaining" powers were granted to them. Any astute lawyer will point out that the Constitution already granted the federal government explicit powers; there were no significant powers left to delegate to states aside from hyper-local matters like policing. And the SCOTUS rulings from the first 50 years of U.S. history back up the understanding that the 10th Amendment didn't actually give the states meaningful powers. The idea that the 10th Amendment actually granted the states any powers was a fiction first employed by the Southern states to try to secede from the Union, and resurrected a century later by the Federalist Society.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
Chrisholm v. Georgia prompted the creation of the Eleventh Amendment specifically to patch that part of the law to strengthen the states, so that's hardly a good example of a building consensus of federal powers. Ware v. Hylton is a straightforward application of the enumerated powers. Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is likewise straightforward—it would be meaningless to have a federal law if each state could interpret it differently. While McCulloch v. Maryland has been used to dramatically extend the powers of the federal government it's not clear that this was the intention at the time. The scope at the time was that the delegation of a specific power to the Federal government implied the delegation of the means to execute that power, which is not the same thing as assigning all powers to the Federal government by default. While we're citing random Supreme Court cases to try to get a sense for the legal situation in the 1800s, here are some you glossed over: * Barron v. Baltimore (1833) held that the Bill of Rights could not bind State governments. * Cooley v. Board of Warrens (1852) held that States can regular interstate commerce as long as they don't conflict with acts of Congress. * Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. (1895) held that unapportioned income tax was unconstitutional. This had to be fixed with an amendment. > The idea that the 10th Amendment actually granted the states any powers was a fiction first employed by the Southern states to try to secede from the Union, and resurrected a century later by the Federalist Society. If this were true then I would be 100% sympathetic to the Southern states who felt they'd had a bait and switch pulled on them. But it's pretty obvious from the primary sources all the way through the civil war that this is not how it was perceived. That said, it's obvious that you have your history and you won't be separated from it, so I'm going to check out here.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  That said, it's obvious that you have your history and you won't be separated from it Even with a cherry picked list, you've provided no evidence that the Constitution gave the states any significant power. Indeed, you've grossly misrepresented the only case you could find that even touched upon states powers: - Cooley v. Warrens does not hold that states can regulate interstate commerce. It rules that they can regulate intrastate commerce that implicates interstate commerce so long as the regulation does not conflict with federal regulations governing that interstate commerce. I'm going to check out here That's probably for the best. You wouldn't have won this argument since history isn't on your side.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

Chrisholm v. Georgia prompted the creation of the Eleventh Amendment specifically to patch that part of the law to strengthen the states, so that's hardly a good example of a building consensus of federal powers. Ware v. Hylton is a straightforward application of the enumerated powers. Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is likewise straightforward—it would be meaningless to have a federal law if each state could interpret it differently. While McCulloch v. Maryland has been used to dramatically extend the powers of the federal government it's not clear that this was the intention at the time. The scope at the time was that the delegation of a specific power to the Federal government implied the delegation of the means to execute that power, which is not the same thing as assigning all powers to the Federal government by default. While we're citing random Supreme Court cases to try to get a sense for the legal situation in the 1800s, here are some you glossed over: * Barron v. Baltimore (1833) held that the Bill of Rights could not bind State governments. * Cooley v. Board of Warrens (1852) held that States can regular interstate commerce as long as they don't conflict with acts of Congress. * Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. (1895) held that unapportioned income tax was unconstitutional. This had to be fixed with an amendment. > The idea that the 10th Amendment actually granted the states any powers was a fiction first employed by the Southern states to try to secede from the Union, and resurrected a century later by the Federalist Society. If this were true then I would be 100% sympathetic to the Southern states who felt they'd had a bait and switch pulled on them. But it's pretty obvious from the primary sources all the way through the civil war that this is not how it was perceived. That said, it's obvious that you have your history and you won't be separated from it, so I'm going to check out here.

gamblor956 2y ago
That said, it's obvious that you have your history and you won't be separated from it Even with a cherry picked list, you've provided no evidence that the Constitution gave the states any significant power. Indeed, you've grossly misrepresented the only case you could find that even touched upon states powers: - Cooley v. Warrens does not hold that states can regulate interstate commerce. It rules that they can regulate intrastate commerce that implicates interstate commerce so long as the regulation does not conflict with federal regulations governing that interstate commerce. I'm going to check out here That's probably for the best. You wouldn't have won this argument since history isn't on your side.