The federal government is going to continue to use the 10th Amendment as a floor mat until citizens start understanding the problems associated with the 17th A., IMO.

Both the ACLU and the USSC are wrong about this issue, IMO, for the following reason. Misguided justices had made the following constutionally indefensible statement about the 1st and 14th Amendments.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with this above statement is this. Not only did activist justices inadvertently admit that the states do have the power to regulate (cultivate) religion, the same power that authorizes public schools to teach creationism for example, power now limited by the 14th A., but consider the following. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had officially clarified that the 14th A. takes away no state powers.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States **no rights** (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globehttp://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"**No right** (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globehttp://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

In fact, regarding the topic of this blog, note that several government buildings in the nation’s capital were used for worship services in the early 1800s.

Sadly, the bottom line is that nobody seems to know the Constitution and its history anymore. So there’s nothing to stop ungodly organizations like the ACLU from using the courts to express their hatred for Jesus.

Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, I have yet to find any constitutional clause which expressly delegates to Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms. The 2nd Amendment is certainly no delegation of such power. And although several clauses of Section 8 of Article I clearly give Congress the power to regulate military firearms, again, there is no express delegation of power to regulate civilian firearms in the Constitution as far as I can tell.

In fact, historical timelines for the federal regulation of civilian firearms typically show the following disturbing thing. There seem to be virtually no federal regulation of civilian firearms until the FDR administration. And if that is the case, the problem with civilian gun regulations made during the FDR Administration is that FDR and Congress were known to blatantly overstep their constitutional limits on legislation made in that time. So I wouldn't be surprised if federal regulation of civilian firearms was actually unconstitutional.

Finally, note that James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, had regarded the Bill of Rights as unnecessary. This is for this simple reason that the Constitution never expressly delegated to Congress the power to regulate our basic freedoms, such as those listed in the 1st Amendment, in the first place. So the 2nd A. is arguably confusing the fact that the Constitution doesn't expressly give Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms anyway.

Okay, what am I overlooking?

Again, given that Congress now has the power to prohibit migration, Congress's only option concerning the issue seems to be to build a fence along the border, not to give illegal aliens amnesty.

In fact, Joseph Story wrote that the reason for making Clause 4 of Section 8 was to up the bar with respect to who can become a naturalized citizen.

"There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the whole Union to know, who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each state, since they thereby, in effect, become entitled to the rights of citizens in all the states. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." --Joseph Story, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships25.html

The idea of Congress giving citizenship to anybody they damn well please doesn't complement the Founder's intent for giving naturalization laws to Congress. But this doesn't stop the corrupt Democratic Congress from giving citizenship to illegal aliens in exchange for voting for Democrats.

We need to protect the environment. But given the Constitution's silence about things like the EPA, the EPA has no constitutionally authority to exist, the 10th A. automatically reserving government power to address environmental issues to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So the EPA is just another example, like Obamacare, of the Oval Office and Congress bypassing Article V, unconstitutionally creating new powers for the federal government.

The bottom line is this. Voters need to elect pro-state sovereignty lawmakers to both the federal and state governments in this year's mid-term elections. Then pro-state sovereignty lawmakers will hopefully work together, using their legislative votes to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress, including getting rid the of constitutionally unauthorized EPA.

As I've ranted elsewhere...

State-sovereignty ignorant voters were evidently electing likewise ignorant lawmakers to the state legislatures since before the ill-conceived 17th Amendment was ratified, IMO. Otherwise, I don't know how to explain why pro-state power state lawmakers in their right minds would have ratified that anti-state sovereignty amendment. After all, the constitutionally powerful state legislatures unthinkingly gave up their voices in the constitutionally humbled federal government when they ratified that amendment.

The problem with the 17th A., IMO, is that voters started filling federal Senate seats with lawmakers who were just as clueless about state sovereignty as the idiots that they had been electing to the state legislatures were. So it's no wonder that the defunct Senate didn't try to stop FDR from usurping state powers and associated taxes in the 1930s and 40s.

And with the exception of states like Oklahoma, Tennessee and others, what do state sovereignty-impaired state lawmakers typically do but sit back and watch the show while Congress rips off the people.

So if I were to add anything to Mr. Matthews' essay, I will stress that we've got to seize the opportunity in 2010 to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress by electing pro-state power lawmakers to the state legislatures as well as to the federal Congress. This is because we need state lawmakers who are willing fight to keep the federal government on its constitutional leash.

Part II and last part of long comment.

In fact, if the example case mentioned in this blog was Wickard v. Filburn, then the opinion of that case has the most watered down reference to 10th A. protected state powers that I have ever seen.

"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

This scandalous watering down of 10th A. protected state sovereignty essentially lowers state sovereignty to level of gossip, mere rumor.

Also consider that the opinion then goes on to reference the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. And what people probably don't understand about this act (evidently including justices) is that Congress cannot give itself new powers. The constitutional reality is that Article V requires Congress to propose amendments to the states which would give Congress the power it is seeking if the states chose to ratify them; the states don't have to ratify any proposed amendment.

And how ironic that the USSC had decided that Congress has no business regulating agriculture several years before it decided Wickard v. Filburn.

“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. 18 The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.” --United States v. Butler, 1936.

FDR’s eight justices sure made a big difference between 1936 and 1942, didn’t they?

I also noticed that other cases in that period fail to mention state sovereignty relevant statutes like Article V or the 10th A. when testing the limits of Congress's power, essentially sweeping state sovereignty under the carpet altogether.

Again, we have a big federal government mess on our hands because people don't know that the corrupt USSC has been giving the green light to corrupt Congress to overstep it constitutional limits since the days of corrupt FDR.

Getting back federally mandated healthcare insurance, again, not only did Jefferson explain that Congress has no business interfering in intrastate commerce, but the USSC has decided that Congress has no business regulating intrastate medicine.

Finally, the following link should help give people an idea how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792

Part I of long comment.

When Jefferson and Madison argued against Hamilton's proposal for a national bank in 1791, Jefferson wrote an excellent paper describing the following. He described how the general welfare and commerce clauses are to be interpreted with respect to the Founder's requirement that the federal government's powers are limited to those expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. Jefferson noted the following about the commerce clause, for example.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

(Jefferson's note about the general welfare clause in the document reference above is worth the read.)

Also consider that, while discussing the Founder's division of federal and state government powers, Jefferson had noted that the Founders had trusted the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, with care of the people.

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; >>to each State, severally, the care of our persons<< (emphasis added), our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262 http://tinyurl.com/onx4j

Given Jefferson's words, it doesn't surprise me that the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into the medical practice which is reasonably regarded as a state power issue, IMO.

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

But the reason that DC is now full of power-hungry crook-lawmakers who ignore constitutional limits on Congress, particularly limits on federal taxation and spending, is this, IMO. Citizens have not been teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly the very important constitutional principle of state sovereignty. The consequence of this was that, by the time constitutionally clueless FDR was president, both the federal and state legislatures were full of lawmakers who evidently couldn't care less about state sovereignty.

But what finished off state sovereignty, from a PC point of view anyway, is that FDR had managed to nominate eight justices, many of them pro-big federal government and outcome-driven, which is undoubtedly what FDR wanted. And if you look at the opinions of cases where the limits of Congress's power was tested, the justices wrongly ignored state sovereignty, IMO.

Regarding Obamacare, the Constitution's silence about public healthcare means that the 10th A. has automatically reserved government power to regulate healthcare to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. In fact, the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into the medical practice.

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

Just as noteworthy is the fact the USSC has decided that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So not only is Obamacare constitutionally unauthorized, but Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund Obamacare.

Congress is trying to enslave the people! :^(

What's going on, IMO, is that state lawmakers and the federal Senate have not been doing their jobs to protect citizens from constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes and illegal federal interference in people's lives. This is a consequence of the ratification of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

One way that people can restore state sovereignty is the following, IMO. Voters need to elect pro-state power lawmakers to both the federal and state governments in 2010. Once elected, pro-state power lawmakers can effectively use their legislative votes to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, much like corrupt DC Democrats are effectively repealing the rest of the Constitution at this time.

Finally, the following link should help people get up to speed as to how voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792

As a side note to your good point about a given state being able to manufacture arms to protect itself, the following has recently occurred to me. The 2nd A. is arguably "insignificant" for the following reason. Regardless that Article I, Section 8 has clauses which clearly delegate to Congress power to regulate military firearms, I haven't found any clause that delegates to Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms. The 2nd A. certainly isn't a delegation of such powers.

In fact, I find it very suspicious that when you look at the history of non-military federal gun regulations, nothing significant typically appears on the timelines until the FDR administration. This is significant, IMO, because that's the time when Congress, the Oval Office, and the USSC began to grossly ignore constitutional limits on federal government powers. So I wouldn't be surprised if federal gun regulations for civilians are ultimately shown to be unconstitutional. Yes, what a statement!

Also, I have sometimes wished that the Founders had included gun rights in the 1st A.'s list of laws that Congress is prohibited from making altogether. But the Founders couldn't prohibit Congress from making gun laws altogether because they had previously given Congress the power to regulate military firearms.