The return of the 10th Amendment

A state capitol

“The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states’ rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.” wiki

Comment: In spite of “commerce clause” usurpation, “supremacy clause” usurpation and the desire of ardent nationalists to reduce the states to entities with no shared sovereignty with the federal government, that ambition and process has failed.

Roe was overturned as a precedent on exactly this basis, namely that there is no “right of privacy” in the Constitution. Chief Justice Warren’s fanciful creation stood for a ridiculously long time. Now it is gone. Gone. Gone.

Amusingly, it is clear that when the left howls for “democracy” what they mean is “what we want,” pl

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

This entry was posted in Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The return of the 10th Amendment

  1. Whitewall says:

    It is instructive that howls about our ‘democracy’ rarely seem to invoke ‘our Republic’ instead. Democracy alone without restraints can be a frightening thing.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Piesistratus … comes to mind. He is reborn when we go w/democracy w/o respect for minority. It’s what the socialists want. Soon they will bring in the guys w/guns to insure there will be no more loud marches for democracy. What did Roy Orbison sing … “its over”. I’m not sure AOC and her ilk know this. If they do, and they want it, they are truly barbarians w/i the gates.

  2. Fred says:

    A lot of other pieces of unconstitutional federal government power are going to go by the wayside soon, including a great deal of administrative law.

  3. Bill Roche says:

    I think you are wrong, but I hope you are right. The mind boggling extension of federal power through the “commerce and supremacy” clauses, the absence of defiance by state govs, the unaccountable power given federal agencies, and the blackmailing of the states through federal fund “sharing”, gives me little hope for recovering govt federalism. The anti-federalist were right in ’87. Federalist never intended to honor the original intent of the constitution. Hope I am wrong on this, perhaps you are the optimistic one.

    • Polish Janitor says:

      Interesting points you made. The way I see the overturning on the Roe vs. Wade and the idea of a restoration of some kind of federalism in this context is that the problem of centralization that has been reaching to very dangerous levels since the post WWII period had ultimately led to a situation where no other institution than the SCOTUS could have ever undo it and to actually pave the way for some rollback of collectivism and majoritarianism which are absolutely poisonous to natural rights and freedom. I think between the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 as a valuable experience in self-government and post 1789 and the ratification of the Constitution it made sense for the unity and centralization to take root and to create a powerful American nation to not only survive internally, but to become a successful and prosperous nation externally. The Articles of Confederation and the anti-federalists could not properly ensure the survival of America at the time of great instability and danger prior to 1789. But fast forward to now I believe this collectivization needs to be broke down so that things could balance out naturally and organically. This was a historic moment for sure and especially for those who appreciate the concept of ‘ordered-liberty’ as derived from natural rights which Kavanagh actually mentions in his published opinion. Probably the only good thing that the Trump administration managed to achieve was the appointment of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Comey-Barret to the bench. I hear and read people saying that they fear this would somehow positively ‘invigorate’ the far-left scum and will help them turn the political tide in their favor in November! This is non-sense and I’d argue that the more these nihilists march the streets and the louder and more disrespectful they get the more damage-literally!- they inflict on the Democratic party’s political prospects in the mid-to-short run. They showed how they behaved when they were ‘activated’ and ‘triggered’ especially back in the summer of 2020 with the riots, lootings, chaos and injuries that they inflicted upon others. If I were at the DNC I would be very alarmed by such catastrophic prospects for the party the moment the far-left starts marching down the streets across America…

      • JK/AR says:


        “I hear and read people saying that they fear this would somehow positively ‘invigorate’ the far-left scum and will help them turn the political tide in their favor in November! This is non-sense and I’d argue … ”

        I’m not so sure there won’t be some [but to what effective degree] ‘invigoration’ coalescing from the rather sizeable portion of *that side. What shenanigans did or did not *take place in 2020 left off-the-table for the moment. However the *result is plainly manifest: if not in “mind” – joke; sort of, sadly – obvious in spirit.

        But rather than me rambling I happened upon an editorial that more succinctly expresses what forebodings I have:

        November’s ‘tell’ will come soon enough. Perhaps too soon.

        • JK/AR says:

          I wish to expand on a very few things I’ve put forward on my above immediately previous comment – Two primary items: #1 my use of the word “foreboding” and #2 – in that I’ve yet to give (even for myself!) sufficient time “thinking it out” – just in case Somebody calls me out to explain more fully what I meant!

          Necessary foundation

          On a previous thread addressing TTG I alluded to some few *rules Congress carved out for itself – in that I made up the title, Do something/anything rule NOW! rule.

          (I’m a 100% VA certified disabled person – not service connected – but why perhaps helps explain why I spend so much time on the internet. But I do enjoy “some periods” able to get out and about and can drive my pickup.)

          In some periods of my existence – following K12 – I spent time on university campuses, first as student then as … I was never what they call [precisely speaking] a “math whiz” so for the purposes of why I’ve come to make this comment I had to get myself to an acceptable meaning of the word “Proof” which, thanks to the Internet:

          “A proof in science is a successful demonstration of a hypothesis under study using evidence and analysis. It is a misconception in many ways, since science actually can prove nothing. In this sense, “proof” is a simplified way of saying “greatly enhanced confidence”.

          Foundation concluded

          Hypothesis: The Senator Cornyn Proof

          RINO – Insert one’s own preferred definition.

          [General] Observation : RINOs seem to be increasingly willing to betray their core constituencies’ “interests.”

          Example #12, 493… … > “Red Flag Laws” absent Due Process protections.

          Observation gleaned from Blogdom

          #1 (a) Voting harder doesn’t seem to be working out so hot where getting elected RINOs to fulfill campaign promises to be more effective than the elected RINOs might ought to be.

          #1043 (z) Why exert oneself to bother oneself to go to the polls and vote for a RINO who ain’t gonna do anyway what one went to the trouble of getting out of bed/leave the picnic, then stand in line and vote for in the first place?


          The Conservative/Republican Turnout will be negatively affected and/or Totally Insufficient.


          As I prefaced, “I’ve yet to give myself time to sufficiently think this out.”

          Still, given that there’s not much time between now and November I think my “Perhaps too soon” is likely to stand the test of time.

          Of course this is all purely theoretical at this point but I guess we’ll see soon enough whether the ‘John Cornyn Proof’ becomes ‘The John Cornyn Law.’

          Politics afterall, although it does bear some resemblance to Gravity, isn’t likely to get me a statue next to Isaac Newton or whoever it was got to the point of establishing The Laws of Thermodynamics.

    • Fred says:


      The centralization via administration is going to go by the wayside soon:
      “Fifth Circuit Holds That SEC Administrative Law Courts Are Unconstitutional”

      If congress thinks these regulations, or EPA regulations for that matter, are good they should enact them into law. Then create or fund judicial positions to adjudicate them specifically if they so desire. Letting the executive branch do all three is obviously unconstitutional.

      • JK/AR says:


        Digging into your provided link some I first searched into the law firm representing the Plaintiff (Petitioner) and was initially heartened but was soon disabused of that notion – Wikipedia so I ought to’ve expected that.

        Then in the final paragraph I espied:

        “Also ominous is the fact that the D.C. district and appellate courts disagreed with Jarkesy’s reading of the Constitution, since those courts are widely regarded by securities lawyers to be authorities on the arcana of U.S. administrative law. If the Supreme Court shares that view of the D.C. courts’ expertise—and past Supreme Court decisions suggest that it often does—it seems probable that Jarkesy’s victory will be short-lived.”

        Yes the Fifth Circuit provided some welcome relief but, alas in my non-attorney estimation, I think it will be short-lived.

        Unless perhaps … Well as the good Colonel as corollary – paraphrasing – “[The] sovereignty [of] the federal government, [in] that ambition and process has failed.”

        (Now I suppose it possible just that with the [relative] newcomers to SCOTUS – borrowing in this instance – “Another one bites the dust.”)

  4. Deap says:

    Instead of this current Democrat-led violent insurrection against the US Supreme Court, they simply need to draft the 34th Amendment to the US Constitution. That is the lawful process to get what they claim the people want want.

    Why are they not doing this?


    —whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,

    — or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,

    —which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

    —provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;

    —and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    • Whitewall says:

      There is currently an ongoing Convention of the States effort right now with representatives working in many states to persuade legislators to vote exactly for this. I know one volunteer right now and she is working hard in Raleigh. I asked her if this could be opening Pandora’s Box if successful. She said that had been considered and people running the event if it happens would keep a tight hold. I suggested she should ‘saddle up her boys’ and keep several thousand lean and capable fellows close by just in case.

      Those in power like to keep it and don’t care to hear too much liberty and restraint talk among their serfs and vassals.

      • Fred says:


        “ongoing Convention of the States effort ” …She said that had been considered and people running the event if it happens would keep a tight hold. ”

        She’s either monumentally naive or ready to accept whatever men like Zuckerberg offer when they show up with money beyond the dreams of avarice to sway the outcome.

        • Whitewall says:

          That could be a danger. A runaway convention would be disaster but I think it was probably considered at the time of the Framers writing. There were money men then too and power hungry as well. The good will have to overcome the worst in human nature. Tricky business this ‘self government’ stuff.

          • Fred says:


            The original convention was to suggest changes to the Articles of Confederation. The result was radically different.

    • scott s. says:

      During the nullification crisis of the 1830s, Pres Jackson sent his vp Van Buren to New York (Van Buren ran the political machine known as the NY Regency) to draft what would be a resolution expressing opposition to that of South Carolina. Van Buren did supply arguments as to why nullification was not constitutional, but then went on to opine about government in general. His argument was that while the “three branches” concept was a valid idea, all three had an interest in increasing the general government sphere of operation. His solution to this was mostly an assumption that the states would be united in opposition and that Article V would be the mechanism.

      Problem is I think history has shown states are not united in opposing federal expansion making Article V a tough nut. I agree that there is no control over what a convention would do, but I have a hard time seeing how the 3-4ths threshold could be met to ratify any amendments.

      • Pat Lang says:

        They do not need to be “united.” You want them to form another country?

        • Deap says:

          Rumor is Texas retained a clause that allows them to secede from the US. Terms of engagement when they agreed to become a US state.

          Not sure how break away independent countries would look like, or operate? Is not each state deciding this issue of infanticide on their own, sufficient regional accommodation? Or is this just more jingoistic Democrat “my way or the highway”.

          Even though infanticide is both encouraged and funded in the state of California, the state leftists and deep state players are planning protests and civil disobedience to continue until I suppose they can force a 2/3 state majority to call this convention.

          They go long and they go mean in California. Shades of the 1970’s anti-war movement that did bring our government to its knees, which was also far more about existential survival than the morality of war. Infanticide is existential for Democrats. Odd hill to die on.

          California is a state on drugs, any questions? As the old anti-drug ad would say, this is this state on drugs, with a splat of a egg on a hot frying pan. Like Kamala, most do inhale out here and do inhale 24/7.

          Cogent thought is not their long suit. Let alone any concept of binding or unifying constitutional principles. I want it, I want it now and the hell with you is as much consistency as one gets out here. Yes, I do despair since I live in a terribly leftist mob mentality echo chamber – but with excellent weather and scenery as long as one does not try to socialize too much.

          • TTG says:


            The 10th Amendment lets California be California, whether you like it or not. Under Trump, California fought hard for her 10th Amendment rights against federal efforts to dictate policy and regulations from Washington DC.

        • JK/AR says:

          Respectfully Colonel Lang (additionally admitting my ignorance of your specific intent in “They do not need to be “united.” You want them to form another country?”

          I’m not sure “form another country” is in the instance to necessarily be inferred as following.

          There have been numerous instances where states’ AGs have joined to push back [against] some something an Executive agency/department is “efforting” to do.

          In my cursory search for just such an example – my criteria being only that whatever example I cite being that such instance have “a sizeable number” of AGs so joined:

          * I must allow as I did not do other than a ‘skim read’ of the suit’s language but I think had either of the words [declaring] “insurrection” or “rebellion” appeared those would have jumped out at me.

          • JK/AR says:

            Colonel Lang?

            It only occurred to me as I went to refill my coffee that, your ” … form another country” might have been in jest ie humorous.

            The ‘administrative state’ having been with us so long, arguably ‘only kicked into high gear during the Truman administration’ that, with its diminution it could be tantamount to us being in “another country.”

            Should that be the case I withdraw my immediately previous comment.

    • Condottiere says:

      They need to use Article 5 convention to first repeal the 17th amendment then the rest is easy.

      • Bill Roche says:

        Ha ha ha; you think it would be that simple? I think you’re right. I senator representing their state b/f and while part of the fed govt would change the whole idea of “power sharing”. The “progressive movement “was just a socialist movement and part of the long march to the destruction of the Republic. They have been eating at it for 130 years.

  5. Babeltuap says:

    When the DOJ and Pentagon are giving formal dissents we are 1/8th of an inch from hitting critical declination to full blown communism. Only thing that might stop is hyperinflation that breaks the printing press.

  6. ked says:

    “Amusingly, it is clear that when the left howls for “democracy” what they mean is “what we want,”

    Hilariously, we now realize that everyone is howling for what they want… and getting it. The Constitution can be interpreted in any way any persistent social-political-religious movement desires to achieve its ends – given persistent effort & lotsa $$$. That rule is self-evident. We may not have a common law system, but a common urges approach to making whatever any movement wishes to become the law of the land. I won’t be shocked when the consequences of habitually gaming the Constitution and USSC will painfully remind us of Franklin’s admonition about, “a Republic, if you can keep it”. The forces for giving up on that E Pluribus Unum thing confirm Pogo’s observation.

  7. JK/AR says:

    Colonel Lang, All,

    Here’s a very good discussion where the 10th Amendment stuff comes into play at “about” the 35 minute mark. Robert Barnes explaining. Barnes makes his first appearance at the 14 minute mark.

    I’ve only just begun listening so don’t know where else the discussion will go. Currently I’m at the 40 minute mark:

    The other fellow, Viva Frei is also an attorney however he practices in Canada.

  8. Richard Ong says:

    A righteous post, Colonel.

    One doesn’t have to be an ardent nationalist to want to cut the federal monstrosity down to size. It’s arrogance, stupidity, crimes and hideous, suffocating overreach are a result of precisely that Commerce Clause pretzelization and other Supreme Court cowardice and dishonesty. And the catastrophic 17A.

    In fact, states have no shared sovereignty with the federal government. There are 51 distinct sovereignties, not counting the banana mistake on the Potomac, and each has its own distinct AO. We’re all forced on paper to tolerate federal stupidity, capering, and conniving in the sexy world of “geopolitics” but boy howdy hasn’t that been a mistake given how the boys with the toys have lately engaged us all in murderous, pointless, dishonest, ruinous foreign wars and, I’m not kidding here, “regime change,” “nation building,” “democracy spreading,” and general uplift of and inspiration to the unwashed.

    A little inward focus and “downward” allegiance from the Great White Father is in order, not a search for shared sovereignty.

  9. JK/AR says:

    Mostly, I consider, this most recent of the Supreme’s term of decisions weighs mostly to That went well.

    Then again, ‘ya wins some an then again ya loses some’ – Biden’s EPA = Win. Biden’s “Immigration *Policy”? Add one to the losing column:

    (Though the latter is going to require some further ‘thinking onit’).

Comments are closed.