turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (05/24/89)
In article <748@cirrusl.UUCP>, paul@sun600.UUCP (Paul E. Black) writes: > I disagree. In the United States, the Declaration of Independence > and the Bill of Rights say that rights begin with individuals and some > are granted or yielded to society or government for the common good. > > Article X > > "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." The 10th amendment is pretty much meaningless today. The courts would never consider overturning a law on 10th amendment grounds, ie, just because the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to pass that kind of law. There are numerous laws that cannot be grounded in the powers granted to Congress, even using generous interpretations of the interstate commerce clause, etc. A simple example is the scheduling of drugs. While one might argue that Congress has the Constitutional power to ban international or interstate trade in a drug, there is absolutely no reasonable argument that the Constitution gives Congress the power to ban trade that is carried on entirely within a state's boundaries. Despite this, manufacturing and selling, for example, MDMA, will get you into trouble with the feds. (It is curious that Congress's impotency in this realm was was recognized in the case of alcohol, the banning of which required a Constitutional amendment.) Civil libertarians are currently engaged in a ferocious struggle against the drug and porn warriors to preserve the rights outlined in the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments. They are not doing well. For example, the RICO statute allows an accused's property to be siezed before trial, for punitive rather than evidentiary reasons. The courts should overturn this on 6th amendment "due process" grounds, but they won't. The 10th amendment, unfortunately, is already a lost cause. Russell