[geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:43:10PM -0500, Matthew Braun wrote:
> >uh, are you ignoring all the things that john kerry is doing/has done
> >that violate the us constitution?
> 
> Ok, you've accused Kerry of *violating* the Constitution, which would 
> mean explicitly going against what the document says.
> However, as you said, "the constititution does not provide for the 
> following activities" but that does not mean that endorsing them 
> violates anything.
> 
> The 10th 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 
> respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So if a president proposes a system from your list, congress votes on 
> it, and there are no state laws that bar said system, how would there 
> be a violation?

I am jumping into the middle of this, but read this as:

1. the powers not delegated to the US, belong to the individual states

2. the powers not delegated to the state (meaning for example, Ohio)
belong to the people.

2a.  It also helps to remember that the Constitution limits the govt's
rights, not the rights of Americans.  That is the Constitution limits
the governement in what they may do, not the people.

Thus in your question, it would seem that the Feds are interfering
with a right or power that belongs to the people or a person.

You don't give an example, so it is tough to be more specific. 

A silly example might be a new Federal law against slapping yourself
with a sea bass (Dilbert reference).  Without state laws prohibiting
it, a new Federal law would take away your rights to do this
hitherto-legal activity.

--Patrick