1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interstate activism... wrong? Is this about the 10th Amendment?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CoRoMo, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    I chose to create this thread rather than continue anything in the thread I started here because although this is in fact an activism topic, I have some constitutional questions to pose now.

    In the linked thread, I illustrated how a relative of mine believes that when each of us gets involved in the policy making in each others' states, we are supposedly violating that state's right to self governance. Here is my family member's position...
    No, I did not go to law school and neither did he. I'm interested to hear from those of you who DID go to law school, and anyone else who feels versed on the 10th Amendment to speak toward the points he's making. It's probably a good idea to skim through the thread that I linked to in the first sentence there. Otherwise there might not be enough context to fully understand what's being talked about here.

  2. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    First Amendment freedom of speech applies to all people, not just citizens or residents of a particular state. Certainly, state lines are not relevant here.
  3. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    I know.

    The 10th Amendment is a limiter on the government, period and end of sentence, not a limiter on the people. To somehow believe that the 10th is a commission to refrain political opinion at the state line... gives me a headache.

    But I'm no scholar I suppose.
  4. mdauben

    mdauben Well-Known Member

    Another problem with his stance, of course, is that our opposition does not believe in it. Anti-gun forces are freely seeking to influence the legislative process in states where they are not resident. If we refuse to "cross boarders" in our support of gun rights, we are ceding this area of influence to our enemies.
  5. BK

    BK Well-Known Member

    He's not making any sense. He wants to set aside the fact that the Colorado legislation was about gun control for the sake of making a few points, but then he goes on to refer to that very topic from there on out. He's either confused or he's just trying to confuse. I'm no scholar either but I'll throw in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 4 and probably Amendment 14 would apply to a resident of Florida having the authority, the interest, and duty to email the state house in California to protest a bill. The 10th is nowhere applicable here.
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    The short answer is that is simply preposterous.

    1. States don't have rights. States certainly have no right to conduct activities without criticism or comment from any person.

    2. States do have sovereignty and powers. Lawful First Amendment protected conduct (in contrast to unprotected conduct like trespass, physical interference, destruction of property) can not as a matter of fact affect a State's sovereignty nor prevent its exercise of its lawful powers.

    3. The 10th Amendment is of course irrelevant since the Constitution does not regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991) (emphasis added):
  7. hugh damright

    hugh damright Well-Known Member

    It makes sense to me ... as an analogy, if Canada was considering a gun law, I would not contact the Canadian officials to express my opinion, because I am not a citizen of Canada ... likewise, if Colorado was considering a gun law, I would not weigh in, because I am not a citizen of Colorado ... in both cases, it is a matter of respecting the sovereignty of others.
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Abstaining voluntarily is one thing. But suggesting that you're obliged to do so is ludicrous -- as would be imagining that anyone in the Canadian government could possibly care what you think.
  9. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    1) HOGWASH. Ask him to apply that logic to the civil rights movement of the sixties. Are we not allowed to stand up for the U.S. Constitutional rights of our fellow Americans just because they live in a different U.S. state?

    2) Tell him to reread the 10th amendment, please.
    (Emphasis added)

    Are we not people of the United States within the clear meaning of the 10th?

    3) The 10A, as previously noted, is a limit on the authority of government ... not the freedoms of citizens.
    A Colorado congressman can't tell me BOO.... I'll tell him anything I please.
  10. zorro45

    zorro45 Well-Known Member

    My Observations

    I live on the border of two relatively anti-gun states. My business where I get the privilege of paying double the residential property tax rate is in one state and I reside in another. I have taxation without representation. The only way I have to influence the political process where my business is would be to write, give $, etc. to the elected reps in that state. I also feel I cannot raise a ruckus over the gun laws because I do not want to become a target at permit renewal time. Yes, it does irritate me when B. spends millions of $ out of state. It also irritates me when a carpetbagger like Hilliary C. moves to an easy district to win a Senate race (old news, possibly nor gun related, but still irritating). If I cared enough and had any extra $ I would have supported her opponent. I would think that OK.
  11. hugh damright

    hugh damright Well-Known Member

    If this is an assertion that a person who tries to influence another State's legislation is violating the Tenth Amendment, as if he could be charged and convicted of such a thing, then I disagree ... but if it an assertion that such an act would be antithetical to Tenth Amendment federalism, that it disrespects the reserved rights of the States, I think that's correct.
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    You're welcome to your opinion. However, I consider your opinion worthless and reject it out of hand.

    As a private individual, my conduct is not subject to or regulated by the Tenth Amendment.
  13. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    The Bill of Rights is actually a list of restrictions upon the Federal Government. It does not restrict the people.
  14. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    ^+1... and publicly holding that the BoR limits the rights of citizens is ridiculous. That's why the 9TH AMENDMENT was written.
  15. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Well-Known Member

    Tell that one to New York's Bloomberg. Maybe he'll stop spending his money in Illinois if he thought it was unconstitutional. Oh wait, gun control IS unconstitutional and he's all for it so never mind. The constitution doesn't mean squat to the nut bags unless it furthers their agenda.

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Share This Page