The 9th and 10th Amendments CANNOT coexist with the 14th Amendment. The 10th Amendment Center is a fraud. I was blocked by them for posting case law that proves they are frauds. In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chose as the basis for INVADING the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states... [The Supreme Court] has DEPARTED from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. IT HAS AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION IN A MANNER UNKNOWN TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of the Nation. As a result of the recent holdings in that Court, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES IS PRACTICALLY ABOLISHED, and the erst while free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system. Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 269, 267 (1968) [emphasis added] We have held also that in adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, the people required the States to surrender a portion of the sovereignty that had been preserved to them by the ORIGINAL Constitution, so that Congress may authorize private suits against nonconsenting States pursuant to its § 5 enforcement power. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). By imposing explicit limits on the powers of the States and granting Congress the power to enforce them, the Amendment FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution. Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 59. When Congress enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), federal interests are paramount, and Congress may assert an authority over the States which would be otherwise unauthorized by the Constitution. Fitzpatrick, supra, at 456. --527 U.S. 706 (1999) ALDEN et al. v.MAINE [emphasis added]
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:19:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015