quotes like this drive me nuts

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

By limiting the scope of the government's power, however, it is implied that what is not listed is under the scope of the government. The Bill of Rights was added later to ensure some rights that would protect many individuals from a changing government. In other words, there is no right to privacy as many proclaim, but against unlawful search and seizure and many others that fall under the realm of privacy.

That's funny.

It seems the 10th amendment says the exact opposite of what you just said.
"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."

But maybe you're right and what they really meant was "Except for those couple things we said you were allowed to have, everything else is for the government to decide unless they decide they don't want you to have those right either; God save the king!"

 

[lets-retire]

That's funny.

It seems the 10th amendment says the exact opposite of what you just said.
"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."

But maybe you're right and what they really meant was "Except for those couple things we said you were allowed to have, everything else is for the government to decide unless they decide they don't want you to have those right either; God save the king!"

I can see Citricacid's point. The founders wanted to be sure that the people knew what rights they had and the limits of the government. By putting the 10th amendment into the Constitution they told the government and the people what their relationship and rights were. Up until the Bill of Rights the Constitution simply laid out how the government would be set up and ran not really where the limits were.

 

[CitricAcid]

That is entirely not what I am saying, or it goes along with the point I made. The rights in the first 9 amendments guarantee certain rights to the people, while the tenth claims that anything "that is not delegated" is given to the states. Income taxation (changed with an amendment of course), redistribution, education and many other things that exist now were not restricted to the states and not delegated to the United States, yet were able to come in as it was not strictly prohibited. There is a lot of leeway, but the rights given to the people are entirely unwavering (at least in the eyes of the founders)

 

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

That is entirely not what I am saying, or it goes along with the point I made. The rights in the first 9 amendments guarantee certain rights to the people, while the tenth claims that anything "that is not delegated" is given to the states. Income taxation (changed with an amendment of course), redistribution, education and many other things that exist now were not restricted to the states and not delegated to the United States, yet were able to come in as it was not strictly prohibited. There is a lot of leeway, but the rights given to the people are entirely unwavering (at least in the eyes of the founders)

You seem to stop reading right before the part where it says states not reserved by the states go to the people.

Things like the department of education (which coincidentally started just a couple years before high school literacy began falling) highways and social security all had to be brought about by claiming they are present in the constitution under the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.

The constitution doesn't limit the federal government by listing what they cannot do but by specifically saying what they can do. If FDR hadn't been president so long and packed the supreme court the new deal never would have happened.

 

[CitricAcid]

You seem to stop reading right before the part where it says states not reserved by the states go to the people.

Things like the department of education (which coincidentally started just a couple years before high school literacy began falling) highways and social security all had to be brought about by claiming they are present in the constitution under the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.

The constitution doesn't limit the federal government by listing what they cannot do but by specifically saying what they can do. If FDR hadn't been president so long and packed the supreme court the new deal never would have happened.

I agree with your last paragraph and that is what I mean by the original frame of the constitution. The limitations contained therein, however, are interpreted to guarantee a certain list of rights for the citizens, or by limiting the scope of the government. Most of the things done by the New Deal and many other federal institutions need a very loose reading of the Constitution to allow.