Tenth Amendment

The unspecified “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment and the unspecified “reserved powers” of the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution of the United States are independent of the jurisdiction of both the federal government as well as state governments. The foregoing principle is, first, developed more fully and, then, used as an instrument through which to critically reflect on certain aspects of Alan Dershowitz’s perspective concerning current events.

Many individuals believe they understand the nature of the American Constitution and how it relates to the issue of sovereignty. Sometimes, however, the illusion of knowledge is what prevents a person from taking the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the principles, problems, and dynamics to which various foundational ideas -- such as rights, powers, religion, republicanism, and so on -- give expression. The present book -- Sovereignty and the Constitution: An Unexpurgated Guided Tour -- takes the reader on a journey through an array of ideas that explore the relationship between sovereignty and the amended Constitution in a very different way than is done normally by many people, and, as such, seeks to induce the reader to critically reflect on a variety of fundamental principles concerning the issue of self-governance. Particular attention in the book is given to: The establishment clause; concept of republicanism; the issue of rights; natural law; the tenth amendment; hermeneutical styles of framing the Constitution; philosophies of law; leadership; education, liberty; freedom; the rule of law, and sovereignty.

This past year we have seen an unprecedent grab of power from the State to the federal levels. This has caused many Americans to voice their concerns through civil disobedience. Yet, as we have seen from the summer of 2020 to the electoral vote on 6 January 2021, many Americans have gone beyond civil disobedience and rioted, causing loss of life and destruction of property for their beliefs.

The Founding Fathers were concerned with a central government that exceeded its powers and destroying the powers at the local or State level in favor of federal rule. In Federalist no 45 Madison wrote that there are few and defined roles and responsibilities that the federal government could exercise. This is key as today there is a divided America that has been growing since the early 1800s. This division is increasing at a dramatic rate within the United States through the push of many social theories. Part of this is because since 1919 America no longer sees itself as independent sovereign nations tied under a federalist Constitution, but a sovereign centralized government that can solve all the individual’s needs. Additionally, the States and the citizenry have abandoned the founding principles that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and others discussed. Personal responsibility for actions described within the Declaration of Independence have been left to the wayside and in 2021 the populace finds themselves asking and receiving money from the federal government, looking to the federal government as its savior. Yet tensions are flaring in part to the pandemic and the restrictions that have been imposed; founding principles being ignored; and State’s ignoring and fragrantly disregarding their Constitutional duties.

This paper addresses the concerns that have arisen over the last year through the display of civil disobedience and rioting. There needs to be a call for adherence of the rule of law, return to the ‘live and let live’ mentality, and a call for federalist solutions within the growing divide of America. The main points of the paper seeks to analyze the root causes for the recent surge in civil disobedience, what founding principles guide today's citizenry, and finally analyze the State’s responsibility through the Constitution and Tenth amendment. In conclusion the paper seeks to identify common solutions across the federalist experiment that could be implemented to return to the ‘Great Experiment’ that our Founding Fathers started.

Whenever most legislatures in death penalty states have rejected a particular application of capital punishment, the Supreme Court has held that no state may retain that application, reasoning that any death penalty approach rejected by the majority of states is, perforce, unconstitutionally “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment. Although some laud these decisions, they ignore the States’ Tenth Amendment rights to govern themselves within broad constitutional parameters. Rather than defer to opinion polls or tallying state legislative enactments, the Court should engage in true constitutional analysis, forbidding cruel and unusual punishments, but simultaneously honoring states’ rights to govern themselves.