Delegated to the US means the Federal Governemnt in New York City. All powers not delegated to the Federal Government resided with the individual state governments. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation where the state governments enjoyed much more authority and autonomy that they did under the Constitution.

Ok. Done arguing. It is too fucking late and it seems.clear abgemacht just doesn't think the states should have any say and the fed should covet us to a socialist society. I ain't arguing with bullshit like that tonight.

"Delegated to the US means the Federal Governemnt in New York City. "

Wat?

Clearly not all powers. The founders created a corporation in the form of a National Bank. Tell me where in the Constitution it expressly authorizes that?

@Draug

: (

I'm just quoting what the constitution says.

You can have in 1 of 2 ways:

1) 10th Amendment means the Fed can only do exactly what's laid out, in which case we can't have an airforce

2) 10th Amendment still allows for providing the common defense and promoting general welfare, which means the Fed has a lot more power than some may like.

Said fine. No USAF. Instead eachvstate can have its own air force as it isn't granted to the fed nor prohibited to the states.

Washington D.C. wasn't established as the nation's capital until a decade after the Constitution created the United States of America as we know it today. The first capital of the United States was New York City in New York State. The national capital then moved to Philadelphia, and finally to Washington D.C.
The 10th amendment was a part of the Bill of Rights passed in 1791 so the capital at that time was Philadelphia. So the United States is referring to the government in Philadelphia in 1791 as opposed to the individual state governments.

@Draug

Yeah, but the point is we *do* have an air force, so clearly the 10th amendment doesn't work that way.

It could mean, for example, giving tax breaks to corporations who invest in research. It's not directly establishing a government research fund (which is how I'd interpret "providing" to be executed), but it is definitely creating a pro-scientific research environment through government incentives without actually taking the step of directly establishing the fund.

Also, I'm confused about the Air Force thing. I'd think that under the provision of providing for the common defense that one could have a national Air Force. The national bank Putin cited would likely fall under the provision for regulation of the value of money - can't remember the exact wording and don't feel like using google-fu atm.

The Consitution did not create a national bank. The 1st Bank of the United States was created as a part of a proposal by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson argued that the Constitution did not give the United States government the power to create a National Bank, and that since the power wasn't explicitly given to the national government only state governments could charter national banks. Hamilton used the Necessary and Proper clause to argue that the Constitution gave the United States government the power to do anything necessary and proper to carry out its Consitutional duties. Since the United States government is given control of the currency specifically by the Constitution Hamilton argued that it was necessary and proper to establish a bank to monitor currency. Washington agreed and overruled Jefferson's interpreation and the 1st Bank of the United States got a 20-year charter in 1791. What is interesting is that Jefferson did not move to dissolve the bank when he was President from 180-1808.

The academy at West Point and the Air Force academy were both established under the authority of the Necessary and Proper clause as well. The United States government is in charge of the national defense. When West Point was established by the United States government it was argued it was only necessary and proper to establish a training academy for army officers. The same logic was used when Adams established the Navy and Truman the Air Force.

Only state governments could charter banks, not national banks. Jefferson argued that national banks were not authorized by the Constitution, only state banks.

Is Emac a robot?

I never said the Constitution 'created' a national bank. I said it wasn't an explicitly delegated power to the federal government to create corporations, so the 10th amendment's much ballyhooed restrictions on federal power were rendered toothless by the very people who crafted the document.

Marriage is an example of American federalism. The regulation of marriage is not given to the United States governemnt explicitly in the Constitution so each state regulates their own marriages. This is why some states can have same sex marriage and others don't. I forget which part of the Constitution mandates it, it might even be an amendment or a piece of legislation, but one state must respect the marriage licenses and other licenses issued by another state. So even if your state doesn't allow same sex marriage if a same sex couple legally married in their home states moves to another state that doesn't allow it their marriage remains legal. This is at the heart of the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott said he was free because his master took him to Illinois where slavery was illegal, but part of the decision said that state laws cannot void legal actions, buying a slave, undertaken in another state and must be protected. So in a weird way the protection of slave owner's property rights allows same sex marriage.

Putin, I know we disagree, but you are just a fucking asshole. I'll leave it at that.

Putin, none of my posts, outside of the one where I call you a fucking asshole, has your name in it.

I was the one who brought up the bank. You're too interested in posturing a thousand mini history lessons to bother reading what anybody is saying.

@ Emac - That's just a really terrible way of running things.

"So even if your state doesn't allow same sex marriage if a same sex couple legally married in their home states moves to another state that doesn't allow it their marriage remains legal." - That's not true. DOMA: look it up.

The fact is this states rights nonsense is just that, nonsense. It's a horribly inefficient way to run a country, and it just has absolutely no advantages whatsoever. Small scale local governance was a good idea back when geography posed a serious challenge to communication and travel. Now that it doesn't, economies of scale make national governance not only feasible, but actually more efficient.

" So in a weird way the protection of slave owner's property rights allows same sex marriage."

Not really - See: the second part of the Full Faith & Credit clause & the Defense of Marriage Act.

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

@PE

This is the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I was unclear.

A1S8 says 2 things:

1) The preamble states that congress can provide for the common defense and promote general welfare.

2) It gives a list of very specific duties.

Now, if the 10th amendment limits congress to only those duties listed in (2), then we can't have an air force, because the constitution only grant congress power for land and sea. We clearly have an air force, so that's probably not what the 10th amendment actually means.

You see what I'm getting at?

If anyone else mentions the bank it must be because you wrote about it Putin? Is that you narcissitic explanation? I simply post my viewpoint on a forum board where I play. Do you get your Ego fullfilled here or something? I try simply to post a viewpoint to add to the discussion. I don't need a complement, an agreement, or a rejection. It's simply my contribution. Ignore it if you like. Attack it if that's how you get your kicks. Have a self-centered image that this thread is all about you if that's fullfills your ego. Do whatever you like. Cyberspace is freespace, and so is the forum. Feed that narcissim and ego man. Go for it.

The reality is this:

If the entire US government hinges on the difference between "provide" and "promote" then it's probably not the best document to be following.

Article 18 of the Constitution covers the establishment of the Air Force.
"The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The national defense was a power given to the United States government. It is necessary and proper for the Congress to pursue its power of national defense to establish an Air Force in 1947 by legislative act. I think it was the National Defense Act of 1947. That year the CIA was created, the national security council, and the DOD. The Supreme Court never ruled that this legislation violated the Constitution so they are legal.

Emac, I don't know why you are flipping out. Like I said, you simply make posts without conversing with anyone here. So I mention a bank and you give us your lecture about the bank, but somehow that's not related and I'm an egomaniac for thinking you were talking to people and not yourself.

"Article 18 of the Constitution covers the establishment of the Air Force. "

This doesn't mean Emac is replying to abgemacht.

Is there a decision of the Supreme Court that declared a legislative act of Congress unconsitutional because of the difference between provide and promote.

"Feed that narcissim and ego man. Go for it."

Doctor, heal thyself.

Putin, is Abgemacht the only person posting about the Air Force?

Everybody is an egomaniac because Emac won't specify who the hell he is talking to. Keep ranting, bro.