Talk:Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Introduction paraphrasing issues

I'm not entirely sure if this is a big issue or not, but the introduction paragraph is poorly paraphrased. Proper paraphrasing requires changing the sentence structure, which the introduction does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.254.203 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed Limit?

Sentence 5, paragraph 2 section Federal Funding states "Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit..." The national speed limit was abolished, wasn't it?166.204.162.219 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)DLM

23 Mar 2009 - noted page was again vandalized by some other user

Text of amendment was modified adding spurious age 18 exception. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to try and change a record of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcfriend (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected page against further vandalism

Hi, this page looks severely 'screwed' as it were - it keeps getting little bits of irrelevant text tacked onto it, along with text being defaced and removed. I have protected the page from new users because of this. I'm unable to fix the (*)(*) under the commerce paragraph, as I'm unsure of its a) purpose and b) what is supposed to be there. EDIT: Are protections for pages supposed to be requested? This wasn't exactly clear when I added the template. In case they are, I apologise, and I didn't intend this as vandalism or any other such thing. I simply wanted to stop the constant stream of trash being added to the article.

DavidR1991 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hackers have vandalized the page

I've looked into the editing and cannot find the hacks. So I looked into the code and found where they hacked the system. You have a problem now that little punks have gotten into your system.

Update: seems that I looked into the page when someone was fixing it. Looks like you guys just need to keep people without accounts (like me) and those with new accounts from being able to edit these areas.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.228.146.226 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

This is vandalism?

Why does it say "this is vandalism" in the first paragraph? Could someone correct this please? I dont want to remove it incase its *supposed* to be there. -Habbzz EDIT:sorry someone has removed it as i typed this

Word switching and myspaceTM reference

Has anyone noticed that the wording in the Amendment itself is incorrect? Get out your copy of the Constitution and see. The words "delegated" and "reserved" are switched. An Admin, Dustimagic, blocked editing of the page purposefully so that it would remain that way. Could some other admin PLEASE shut off the protection and correct this?

Why is "This was introduced August 29th, 1990. Elaina Peets married Parker Zickel. They had 12 childern and 9 cats. They loved their kitties so much they made a myspace for them." in the article?

Neutrality

This article has some NPOV problems, in that its language describes broad interpretations of the amendment as a conspiracy. It needs to be explained better, in a less antagonistic tone. Mateo SA | talk 03:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've adjusted the tone of the paragraph that I believe was the biggest problem (The one that talked about Congress circumventing the 10th amendment). It now is written to reflect that this is the view of some, not that it is a fact. I think the tone is now neutral, and have removed the NPOV flag. Kenj0418 19:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a neutrality issue or not, but the one of the external links at the bottom isn't actually a resource on the tenth amendment. The Tenth Amendment Center is more of a political website and is actually run by something called the Populist Party. The information it provides is not neutral, and often contains misleading or just plain wrong information. The wikipedia style guide simply says that external links should provide additional information. But it also says that we should refrain from using too many links. In this case, I'm suggesting deleting the link, since I don't believe it adds valuable information for the readers. Donaldrobertsoniii 12:59, July 22, 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

commerce clause not needed

the discussion of the commerce clause is important in the discusion of US federalism but it is not related to the tenth amendment. it should be moved somwhere else or at least shortened considerably

The 10th amendment is the reason the commerce clause is used in this way. Because of the 10th amendment Congress must only use the powers expressly granted, and the commerce clause was able to bend the most. -- Myria 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A casual mention of the commerce clause would suffice. There is a Commerce Clause page, by the way. The discussion of United States v. Lopez should not be on this page at all:

"This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment. " --71.223.215.121 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If the section remains, it could really use some citations. "In the twentieth century, complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy." This is contentious. The simple political challenge of the Court Packing Plan may have had more to do with it. Student Anselmus (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"or to the people"

I've wondered for a long time about the phrase "or to the people". Is that an explicit statement that "anything not illegal is legal", that you can only be charged with a crime that was passed as a law (or inherited in common law)? -- Myria 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• English common law does operate on the basis that anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed, as I recall. Hence this supposition seems on the mark. 71.198.127.97 09:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is also intrinsic in the ex post facto clause. It cannot be illegal until there is a law against it and the law cannot be retroactive. Otherwise people would get charged all the time for things which should have been illegal and weren't....yet.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.108.19 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-Organize history and caselaw

I was thinking about re-organizing this page so that forced participation is at the top of the “History and Case Law” section. My reasoning is that it is the only case where the Supreme Court has ever invalidated a law for violating the Tenth Amendment; Commerce Clause and Tax and Spend power are only areas where one might suspect that the Tenth Amendment would come into play, but does not. Any thoughts? --Skeenbr0 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Police Powers

This amendment basically allows states police powers and gives them the ability to legislate morality, as decided by Lochner v. New York. Its very important and I dont see why its not on here. MasonicLamb 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The best way to get that done would be to write the section yourself. The beauty (and the point, really), of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it. Go to! --Skeenbr0 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "or the people" clause would nullify the states the ability to legislate morality, as would the Fourteenth Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.187.228 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

contradiction

The article first claims that the 1985 case of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled 10th Amendment claims non-justiciable, and that this case remains controlling precedent. The article later goes on to say that in a 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court struck down a law on the basis of the 10th Amendment, indicating that 10th-Amendment claims are justiciable (and successfully pursuable, at that). Which is it? --Delirium 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the 10th even relevant anymore?

It seems to me we fought a war in the 1860s that stated that the Federal government can overrule the states if they exercise the 10th amendment. Any mention of secession or leaving the Union was explicitly left out of the Constitution's wording, as the states at the time were wary of the new form of government and what would come of it (New York and Rhode Island come to mind). As it was intentionally left out, it was a right reserved to the states and the people. I applaud the fact that Lincoln had a hand in ending slavery, but he dealt a deathly blow to the 10th Amendment. 71.198.127.97 09:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Confederates started the war when they launched an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter. Lincoln can't be held responsible for that. Get your facts straight. 63.83.35.3 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Federal government started the war by refusing to leave Confederate property. The Confederates were forced to evict them. Lincoln could not have cared less about the Constitution, or the 10th Amendment. Get YOUR facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.98.3 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The error of the Confederate States was to enter into a state of insurrection which is covered by Constitutional authority. What they failed to do was to seek through the courts a relief for orderly and peaceful termination of the contract between the individual States and the Union. At the time no one would have thought the Court had such authority which is why no precedent exists and force of arms to quell insurrection does not establish a legal precedent. In the modern age it might be quite interesting to see what happens if a State government sues in Federal Court for the right to terminate the contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.108.19 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this brought up long ago? Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). Note that this ruling, being about Texas, also means that there is no truth to the myth that Texas has some special treaty allowing it to seceed. See also http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html from February 2010, in which the still-sitting Justice Antonin Scalia replied in October 2006 to an inquiry about such a thing being a credible storyline. Also, there is the common-sense answer to this question: If secession by lawsuit had a snowball's chance, don't you think certain state officials would constantly be filing suit about it over and over, just for the political campaign value? --Closeapple (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved Forced Participation

I thought it made more sense to discuss those cases that actually use the tenth amendment before getting on to the commerce clause and tax and spend cases, since those cases simply show how Congress has used powers that it was granted to exert power over the states. (I do not discuss at this time the wisdom of such actions; I only think that we ought to put the actual Tenth Amendment cases at the top, rather than leave them as an afterthought). --Skeenbr0 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma?

Is there any validation concerning Oklahoma's HJR 1089? I mean, as far as I'm aware, exercising state's rights under the Tenth hasn't been done in over a century. You'd think it'd be picked up nationally. Cougar Draven (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• States exercise their power under the Tenth Amendment all the time - whenever they levy a local tax, imprison someone for assault or rape or car theft, enact zoning regulations. Whatever it is that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to do, states are in charge of (unless the Constitution says that no one can do it, such as with slavery or barring free speech). bd2412 T 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

True Discussion?

This page seems to accept as FACT that the 10th amendment has died because of the acts of Congress. It does not mention that many of the acts taken up by the United States Federal Government are ILLEGAL as stated by the Tenth Amendment. I think a controversy section should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milllanjp (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

"This basically means, the states have much more power than the Federal Government."

I don't think any of the other texts of the amendments have little interpretations like this, and this is certainly not the accepted interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.30.138 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Amendment Center is not a neutral source (but it is useful)

There are a lot of citations to the Tenth Amendment Center in this article. I clicked on some of the links, and they are clearly advocacy pages of a certain point of view. The links do provide factual evidence for the tagged sections of text, by and large, so I wasn't willing to simply yank them out; the article would be worse with no references at all than with references that provide both facts and advocacy relating to them. At some point, I may wish to do the following:

• Maintain Tenth Amendment Center link in the External Sites section.
• Search for any opposing advocacy sites that argue for a different interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and include them. (Unless the other links that are already there are deemed adequate rebuttal.)
• Try to find news articles that cover the same facts, e.g. states that have passed "medical marijuana" laws, and ensuing conflicts with the US federal government. Replace citations using Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) with factual news articles where possible, or in addition to TAC where TAC adds in missing pieces of the facts from other sources.

My overall goal would be to provide a fair balance of opinion, covering multiple interpretations of the Tenth Amendment, while reducing the appearance that this article overwhelmingly uses an advocacy group as its primary source of facts. Does this sound like a fair approach to others? CosineKitty (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree it the Tenth Amendment Center is an advocacy group supporting these actions. However, most likely there isn't going to be a "neutral" site; either you will find groups that advocate Tenth Amendment actions or groups that oppose such. And so far it is the only site that is compiling state legislative actions such as those shown. If anyone else can find other sites to add please feel free to do so. Quidam65 (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. I am starting my search for additional sources. Here are some in regards to state sovereignty resolutions. It's not clear yet whether these have passed. They might be worth mentioning in this article.

• Kansas Senate resolution asserts state's sovereignty
• Wyoming Legislature

CosineKitty (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"State Sovereignty Resolutions and Nullification Acts"

This section seems excessively long. First, it is based mostly on a single source. Second, most of the items in it refer to legislative proposals. There are 50 states, and in each one there are probably hundreds of legislative proposals made each year. Perhaps it would make more sense to limit it to proposals that have received attention from mainstream press, and/or have actually been passed.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is starting to look like a cheerleading section/wish list for the Tenth Amendment Center. It may not be NPOV, but wikipedia should be. --Weazie (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This section should probably be eliminated as it introduces a serious amount of point-of-view into the article. 12.52.96.200 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

State legislative actions

Please expand statements to include which states introduced/passed said measures. This will increase usefulness of the page.

Instead of: "...six states introduced such legislation."

Place: "...six states (Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) introduced such legislation."

Thank you, Ihafez (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Debatable interpretation about limits of state actions

I just noticed this edit to the article. It appears to state as fact that "Health Care Nullification" state actions will be doomed because of federal supremacy. First of all, this confuses the issue because many of the state actions are federal lawsuits, not laws. Secondly, we don't have a crystal ball to know how the state laws will stand or not. The placement of the added sentence is also a non sequitur because it has nothing to do with the given paragraph. I do think this article leans too much toward the point of view of a particular advocacy group. If the context made sense, I could see mentioning Supremacy Clause or Federal preemption in this article as part of a more balanced approach. I am reverting this particular edit, but I wanted to explain why so that it is not seen as simply cheer-leading for the prevailing POV in the article. CosineKitty (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC) You apparently do not understand the Supremacy Clause, Federal preemption, nor did you closely read the edit you deleted. The edit reads: "However, the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of Federal preemption invalidate almost all of the state actions, e.g. National Health Care Nullification." All pure "nullification" acts are frivolous -- and for that reason, this sentence needs to be in the introduction to this issue. The Health Care Nullification acts are the epitomes of pure "nullification" acts, and are therefore the most appropriate "e.g." Because of the Supremacy Clause and Federal preemption, the states simply cannot "nullify" a federal statute which is otherwise constitutional. I am not saying that the states cannot challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute in federal courts; I am just simply stating a truism: "nullification" acts are frivolous. Pmalter0 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Should that not be more explicit? That those laws are frivolous as a State can't simply declare a federal law invalid short a supreme court decision on its constitutionality? But can it not be argued that these States may know full well they can't "nullify" these laws, but in so doing can test the issue in court? Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. You've done precisely that. Canada Jack (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These are sensible edits, IMO. Only United States v. Lopez and one other case to date have set limits on the use the Commerce Clause to justify legislation by the federal government which affect interstate commerce, even when the issue is not interstate commerce per se. Could use a citation, of course. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court will always deny the power of nullification. They do not want to forfeit their place of power and control. The thing is that the States, not the Supreme Court, are the ultimate authority in regards to the Constitution. The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not the other way around. The Supremacy Clause is being grossly misinterpreted. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson discussed at lengths the rightful place of the Federal Government and the ability of states to nullify. I would think that two of the most influential writers and signers of the constitution knew a thing or two about the documented they invested their lives into the creation of. Desire Mercy (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to state that the Doctrine of Implied Powers is directly related to the 10th and I would like that to be stated. -Bob Goernig Phd at Duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.119.9 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Excuse me! I just made a valid statement!

State legislative actions in protest of federal actions

This section really needs to be split off on into its own wiki stub. the size and broad scope of the section really has gotten out of hand. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've put a "split" template into the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't agree at all. If the above user can be specific about what exactly has gotten out of hand. Certainly, not the size of the article. As to scope, the 10th amendment specifically cites limitations to federal powers. So how then wouldn't the state-based citations in this section be pertinent? You're going to have to do better than, "I just don't like it" --- which that appears to be, to me, what the two above users are saying. 10stone5 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• The reason that I think that this section shouldn't be in the article on the Tenth Amendment is that, as the article itself states, "state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact". Symbolic impact may mislead someone trying to understand how the Tenth Amendment actually works. Also, most of the 15 examples in this section don't mention the Tenth Amendment at all. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree it should be split; the list of state protests against supposed 10th Amendment violations by the federal government is related to describing the 10th Amendment, but not crucial to its description. The State protests could very well be a separate article that is linked under the old heading (the usual "Main article:" deal), with a short description that various state legislatures have attempted to pass bills or resolutions in protest of supposed federal overreach. When you look at the contents on this page, it's a mess, with the minority of it having to deal with the Amendment itself or the legal implications; it just comes across as a massive list of complaints, which, while certainly useful, belong elsewhere. Matt White (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments regarding Tenth Amendment's intended role in limiting Federal government spending

Why no mention of the Tenth Amendment's intended role in limiting Federal government spending?

At the time the United States Constitution was written there was some confusion as to whether the words "common defense and general welfare" were the PURPOSE of the following specific spending powers in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution - or whether there was some sort of "general welfare spending power" allowing the Federal government to spend money on anything it declared was for the "general welfare" even if the spending was on something not listed in the specific spending powers of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment settles this confusion - it is clear that the Amendment means (if it means anything at all) that the Federal government may only spend money on those things that are specifically listed - that "common defense and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight. That there is no "catch all" "general welfare spending power" allowing the Federal government to spend as much as it likes on anything it declares for the "general welfare".

In short - most current Federal government spending is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:B9A3:5BA6:C5A7:91E6 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:B9A3:5BA6:C5A7:91E6 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See Helvering v. Davis, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established that Congress essentially has plenary spending powers. Justice Cardozo wrote:

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

Hopefully that helps answer your question. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No it does not answer my question. After all if the Federal government can spend money on anything it declares for the "general welfare" what is the point of listing specific spending powers in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. And what is the point of the Tenth Amendment. No State would have joined a Union where the Federal government can spend any amount of money it likes on anything it declares for the "general welfare" as such a government would be more unlimited that George III in his wildest dreams. Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to amend the plain text of the Constitution - so the United States v Butler is not relevant. Other than as an example of intellectually corrupt judges. Nor is the opinion of Mr Hamilton relevant - as he did not write the Tenth Amendment, Mr Madison drafted it. It is the opinion of Mr Madison (and the plain reading of the text by any honest person) that settles the matter. To claim that there is a catch-all "general welfare spending power" is clearly false - the "common defense and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. The Tenth Amendment settles any honest doubt about this matter.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:39BF:897B:D1F6:3652 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Practical Applications of the Tenth

I think the article could use some examples in which federal power was limited by the Tenth, for example: 1) federal court rulings or 2) federal legislation voted down or repealed due to arguments based on the Tenth. Thanks if you can add something along those lines.CountMacula (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Prigg

@Drdpw: [1], [2] Terrorist96 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Terrorist96: I think you should go back and re-read those two sources. The sources cite the Prigg case, but neither source says that Prigg was a decision involving the Tenth Amendment. And, no, unless I missed it, the Tenth Amendment is not mentioned at all in the text of the Prigg decision. I did a word search on "ten" and "10" and "10th" and "Tenth" and I found nothing. Famspear (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The constitution forbids it; and the constitution only can strip them of this power... The tenth article of the amendments of the constitution settles this part of the case beyond all cavil or controversy. There let it rest. Whatever may be the power exercised by congress, the states at least cannot be deprived of the power that belongs to them under the constitution.

And

These cases are clearly left to the guardianship of the states themselves. The tenth article of the amendments to the constitution secures this right; and self-respect, if not self-protection, demands its exercise.

Source 1 Source 2. Though I will admit that these two quotes are not in other sources, such as Justia.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Terrorist96: OK, I see what the problem is.

The quotes you provided are not from the decision of the Supreme Court in Prigg. The quotes are in the material printed above the text of the Court's opinion. The quotes are summaries of the arguments of one or more of the parties in the case -- not part of the Court's opinion or decision.

The text of the Court's decision begins way, way down in the middle -- with the line that reads: "STORY, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court." The material above that line is not part of the text of the Court's opinion.

In some of the prints of older U.S. Supreme Court cases, this was a common practice -- to print summaries of the parties' arguments above the text of the Court's opinion. These summaries are indeed printed in only some of the re-prints, but not others. For example, you will not find this material in the Google Scholar copy of Prigg.

You are not the first person to make this mistake in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Many years ago, tax protesters used to come to Wikipedia and post the following "quote" which they claimed was from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in a famous Federal tax case, Lucas v. Earl:

"The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation [sic] for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned [i.e., reported on a tax return] by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support....."

Many tax protesters tried to argue that this statement meant that the U.S. Supreme Court was saying that salaries, etc. for personal services were not taxable.

There was just a little teeny tiny problem: The tax protesters were wrong. The Supreme Court never said it. The text is not from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

The text is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the taxpayer's brief. A man named Guy C. Earl was the taxpayer. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some re-prints of the case, this statement -- and various other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the taxpayer's brief -- are re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court. In the case reprints that include this material (and many of them do not include it), these excerpts are not clearly identified for a non-lawyer reader. A non-lawyer can easily miss the point that this verbiage is not part of the Court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected these arguments. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the income was indeed taxable to Mr. Earl.

To learn how to analyze legal materials in the U.S. legal system, especially older materials, a person must read many, many thousands of original texts. Years ago, I estimated that in my three years of law school alone, I studied the actual texts of approximately 8,000 court decisions. This is a staggering amount of reading in a three year period. (I forget how I came up with that estimate.) Famspear (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"System of freedom" phrase

In one of the earlier paragraphs in the article, I see the phrase "...as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system of freedom."

Conceptually and syntactically, I don't think you can have a "system of freedom." You can certainly have a system that affects, or is intended to affect, freedom... but if anything, the concept of "freedom" (breaking out of structure) is somewhat in opposition to the concept of "system" (structure) in general.

This is a minor criticism, and I'm not sure how this should be reworded, but I think it should be. Perhaps something about a "federal system designed to further freedom"?

"erroneous" material

SMP0328. Hello friend. I notice you trimmed some text I wrote with an edit summary that it is "erroneous". [3] Can you please elaborate on this? I literally read a chapter of a book called "Powers reserved for the people and the states: a history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments" to source that text. It is well sourced, so I think some discussion is needed. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has struck down plenty of federal laws, so it is wrong to say that the Court has "consistently" upheld federal laws against Constitutional challenge since World War II. Even if you were referring only to Tenth Amendment-based challenges, it is still wrong: see anti-commandeering doctrine. Perhaps you want the Supreme Court to have a more robust Tenth Amendment jurisprudence, but that does not mean the Supreme Court has not at all enforce the Tenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SMP0328., fair enough, good counter examples. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Imputing intent

This sentence ("The purpose of this amendment is to clarify how the federal government's powers should be interpreted and to reaffirm the nature of federalism") seems to impute, without justification, a specific intent upon the Framers concerning federalism. The Framers were creating a strong central government. They were not, in the Tenth Amendment, expressing a belief in states' rights. James Nicol (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Federalism is not the same as states' rights. Federalism is the relationship between the federal government and the States. States' rights is only the States' side of that relationship. The 10A deals with federalism, not States' rights. SMP0328. (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)