The problem is that the Tenth Amendment is defective, right?

The governor has proposed in his book, Broken but Unbowed, an amendment to the Tenth Amendment to delegate the power to interpret the Tenth Amendment and the limits of federal power to the federal judiciary.  He calls delegating the power to the federal judiciary to place limits on the federal government – enforcement.  He thinks that by adding one word to the Tenth Amendment along with the delegation of power to the judiciary, that from here forward the Supreme Court will no longer misinterpret the Tenth Amendment.  He thinks adding one word to the current text of the Tenth (“expressly”) to read “Powers not expressly delegated to the United States . . .” will tell future Supreme Courts that we really mean it this time, and that this will stop them from distorting the Constitution in the future.  Do you agree?


No.  The problem is that the Supreme Court has deliberately misinterpreted the existing Constitution in the past.  Changing some words and actually delegating them the power of final arbitration that they have previously unconstitutionally usurped will just make the problem worse, not solve the problem.

It is the Supreme Court that is the problem.  Giving it different words to misinterpret will not solve the problem.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.