Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|