Such a simple amendment, is it not? The final amendment of our Bill of Rights provided quite the exclamation point to the first ten amendments that were added to the Constitution. As we all (should) know, the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution in an effort to quell the fears many Americans had that their God-given rights would be violated by the brand new federal government that was much more powerful than the one we had under the Articles of Confederation.
The Tenth Amendment stated that if the federal government had not been given express permission to do something by the Constitution, then that the power to do that something was automatically something only the states or individual Americans could do.
Now, according to the union cultists of the AFL-CIO, to support the Tenth Amendment makes one a "Tenther."
This article is admittedly almost two months old, but I highly doubt their position has changed. Read the diabolical and sadly misinformed article if you wish, but here is just a taste of the AFL-CIO's madness fueled by ignorance:
Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them want to bring their cultish beliefs to the halls of Congress and are running for election this fall.Huh? How is it "irrationale" to interpret something as it is clearly written? For the cultists of the AFL-CIO, they hope that by insisting something isn't true, then it won't be true. That is some true anti-intellectual alchemy that only a cultist could appreciate.
They’re called the “tenthers” and they say federal laws and rules like the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Department of Education, even child labor laws and a laundry list of other federal laws and programs are unconstitutional.
Their rationale—irrationale would be a better word—is that if a federal power is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, well the government doesn’t have it, according to their view of the 10th amendment....
You see of course how the article frames the argument: If you are against federal minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and the like, then you are against those kind of laws period.
No, no, no. If you want laws like that passed, then pass them at the state level. If you truly think that it should be a law that applies to the entire country, then by all means, work to get the Constitution amended to allow law to be passed in those areas.
Otherwise, all those areas of law that are revered in the article are indeed unconstitutional and should not have been passed or enacted. Instead, the federal government - with the support of a misguided and/or ignorant populace - passed laws in those areas, even though they had no power to do so.
Were I King for a Day, I would nullify all those laws mentioned, and leave those matters up to the several states as originally intended. But we don't need a King for a Day; we have an elected legislature and president to do the right thing - even though you know they won't.
I will just go on being a "Tenther."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson