[Vision2020] Fed Educational Funding
John Harrell
johnbharrell@yahoo.com
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
--0-952195821-1054599994=:26752
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mr. Arnold,
Mr. Hansen is correct in his understanding of the tenth amendment.
Your example of Prohibition is a perfect example of why Mr. Hansen's
understanding is correct.
The federal government's power (authority) is bound by the written constitution
as expressly stated in the tenth amendment. If the federal government
wants to change it's power over the people and/or the states, the
constitution allows this to happen, but through the amendment process
(except as noted previously by treaties.) No new amendment, no new
federal power.
When the federal government government wanted to give itself the power
over the states and the people with respect to alcohol, it had to create an
amendment giving itself the power to do so, otherwise, the right would
still be reserved with the states or the people.
The tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
The congress critters of yesterday understood the proper roles of the
federal government and the states and/or people. Today, the congress
critters have usurped their power and authority by no longer following the
law. And the newspapers and the states and the people just follow right
behind like good little sheeple.
This is why we see so many people crying out to the federal government
to take of this problem or that problem. And the federal government is more
than happy to oblige by taking more and more power. This is why I carried
it to the next level. Many people today clamor for the UN to get more and
more involved in our lives. And of course the UN will be more than happy
to oblige by taking more and more power. All this power and authority that
is being usurped by the federal government and eventually the UN means
loss of individual freedoms, let alone just the precedent that the governments
doesn't have to follow the laws. And if the governments dont have to follow
the laws, then why do the people?
Cheers!
John Harrell
Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr Hansen,
I strongly suggest that you take another history course with a different teacher or start talking to some other people in the area of the law. Article VI simple states that all laws on the federal level are higher then laws made in the states in that they are not in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution DOES reserve certain rights to states. The federal government can't pass laws over or in violation of this even though its laws are higher. If you knew your history you would also know that the X amendment was created to clarify this "supposed contradiction" that people were concerned about between the IX Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution, question being,"How can states have rights if all laws by the Federal Government are higher then the states laws?". Rather then giving you a 3 month debate of the Constitution and the rights involved, I simple gave the short version. Just as if someone asked if Alcohol was legal in the United States. I could simple say !
"no" or I could give you a history between Jan. 16, 1919 and Dec. 5, 1933 and all the legalities behind it. I choose to make it as uncomplicated as possible for you. If you want I really get into all the complications for you and list out about 5 court cases of boring legal documentation. It would take about 5 days to read it all. If you want it let me know, it takes about five minutes to get it for you. One other comment, "Our Forefathers" did not all have the same intentions. Some wanted a federalist government, others wanted a very weak federalist government and strong state governments. Thus created the Federalist Party and the Anti-Federalist Party.
Thanks!
Donovan J Arnold
>From: "Tom Hansen"
>Reply-To:
>To: "Donovan Arnold" , , ,
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Fed Educational Funding
>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 05:59:36 -0700
>
>Donovan Arnold states:
>
>"The tenth amendment also states that all rights not defined or prohibited
>by the constitution are reserved to the people. Or in other words, the
>people can make laws that are not in direct violation with US Constitution."
>
>Mr. Arnold: You obviously failed to read Article VI of the US Constitution.
>It reads:
>
>" . . . This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
>made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
>under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
>land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
>Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
>
>I believe that this is not a contradiction. We had discussed this in a
>couple of US History courses I have attended. Our forefathers' intentions
>were, to put it in laymens' terms, to relay all rights not deined within the
>US Constitution to the individual states, provided that any laws or
>constitutions established within the individual states are not in violation
>with the US Constitution, the "supreme law of the land".
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow
>
---------------------------------
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
--0-952195821-1054599994=:26752
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Mr. Arnold,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Hansen is correct in his understanding of the tenth amendment.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your example of Prohibition is a perfect example of why Mr. Hansen's</DIV>
<DIV>understanding is correct. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The federal government's power (authority) is bound by the written constitution </DIV>
<DIV>as expressly stated in the tenth amendment. If the federal government </DIV>
<DIV>wants to change it's power over the people and/or the states, the </DIV>
<DIV>constitution allows this to happen, but through the amendment process</DIV>
<DIV>(except as noted previously by treaties.) No new amendment, no new </DIV>
<DIV>federal power.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When the federal government government wanted to give itself the power</DIV>
<DIV>over the states and the people with respect to alcohol, it had to create an</DIV>
<DIV>amendment giving itself the power to do so, otherwise, the right would</DIV>
<DIV>still be reserved with the states or the people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>The tenth amendment:</DIV>
<DIV>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor </DIV>
<DIV>prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or </DIV>
<DIV>to the people."</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The congress critters of yesterday understood the proper roles of the</DIV>
<DIV>federal government and the states and/or people. Today, the congress</DIV>
<DIV>critters have usurped their power and authority by no longer following the</DIV>
<DIV>law. And the newspapers and the states and the people just follow right</DIV>
<DIV>behind like good little sheeple.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is why we see so many people crying out to the federal government</DIV>
<DIV>to take of this problem or that problem. And the federal government is more</DIV>
<DIV>than happy to oblige by taking more and more power. This is why I carried</DIV>
<DIV>it to the next level. Many people today clamor for the UN to get more and</DIV>
<DIV>more involved in our lives. And of course the UN will be more than happy</DIV>
<DIV>to oblige by taking more and more power. All this power and authority that</DIV>
<DIV>is being usurped by the federal government and eventually the UN means</DIV>
<DIV>loss of individual freedoms, let alone just the precedent that the governments</DIV>
<DIV>doesn't have to follow the laws. And if the governments dont have to follow</DIV>
<DIV>the laws, then why do the people?<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Cheers!</DIV>
<DIV>John Harrell</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Mr Hansen,</P>
<P>I strongly suggest that you take another history course with a different teacher or start talking to some other people in the area of the law. Article VI simple states that all laws on the federal level are higher then laws made in the states in that they are not in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution DOES reserve certain rights to states. The federal government can't pass laws over or in violation of this even though its laws are higher. If you knew your history you would also know that the X amendment was created to clarify this "supposed contradiction" that people were concerned about between the IX Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution, question being,"How can states have rights if all laws by the Federal Government are higher then the states laws?". Rather then giving you a 3 month debate of the Constitution and the rights involved, I simple gave the short version. Just as if someone asked if Alcohol was legal in the United States. I coul!
d simple say "no" or I could give you a history between Jan. 16, 1919 and Dec. 5, 1933 and all the legalities behind it. I choose to make it as uncomplicated as possible for you. If you want I really get into all the complications for you and list out about 5 court cases of boring legal documentation. It would take about 5 days to read it all. If you want it let me know, it takes about five minutes to get it for you. One other comment, "Our Forefathers" did not all have the same intentions. Some wanted a federalist government, others wanted a very weak federalist government and strong state governments. Thus created the Federalist Party and the Anti-Federalist Party. </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Thanks!</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan J Arnold</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Tom Hansen" <THANSEN@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: <THANSEN@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Donovan Arnold" <DONOVANARNOLD@HOTMAIL.COM>, <JOHNBHARRELL@YAHOO.COM>, <CJSNIGHTCLUB@AOL.COM>, <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Fed Educational Funding
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 05:59:36 -0700
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Donovan Arnold states:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"The tenth amendment also states that all rights not defined or prohibited
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>by the constitution are reserved to the people. Or in other words, the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>people can make laws that are not in direct violation with US Constitution."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Mr. Arnold: You obviously failed to read Article VI of the US Constitution.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>It reads:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>" . . . This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I believe that this is not a contradiction. We had discussed this in a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>couple of US History courses I have attended. Our forefathers' intentions
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>were, to put it in laymens' terms, to relay all rights not deined within the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>US Constitution to the individual states, provided that any laws or
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>constitutions established within the individual states are not in violation
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>with the US Constitution, the "supreme law of the land".
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Tom Hansen
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Moscow
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
Help STOP SPAM with <A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMKENUS/2731??PS=">the new MSN 8 </A>and get 2 months FREE*</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Free <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</a> with sync to Outlook(TM).
--0-952195821-1054599994=:26752--