View Single Post
Originally Posted by Nano
By the federal constitution, what is not explicitly in the federal constitution is left to the states, thus meaning that the federal constitution supports those amendments, meaning that through the federal constitution there should be no standing armies. Yes, its a leap of interpretation, but its a valid one.

Thank you for the list of State amendments, I can't really comment on those as they're ... well, not very arguable (though all claim that because of the danger of liberty, they "ought not" to be erected in times of peace)... but it is not true that what is not explicitly in the constitution is left to the states. I believe that the 14th Amendment (and I'm just guessing, I thought it was the 14th) protects rights that are unenumerated in the bill of rights. This was part of the invention of the Right to Privacy, back in Griswold v. Connecticut. So, we have a problem. If the 10th amendment recognizes unmentioned state amendments as federal amendments if they are not mentioned in the federal constitution; and if the 14th amendment protects implicit (not explicit) unumerated citizen's rights ... then there is a discrepency and a contradiction in the constitution. What would happen if a state made an amendment that went against the rights of some people. In one case, the amendment would not be allowed as those rights unmentioned in the bill of rights are still protected under due process, yet that amendment would be assumed by the federal constitution if it is not mentioned explicitly in the federal constitution.

I think that your interpretation of the 10th amendment may be off. I had always thought, though I admit I could be thinking wrongly, that the 10th amendment acted in the opposite--it prevented congress from passing legislature that certain states explicitly denied in their state constitutions.
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-05-2005, 05:49 PM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote