Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (41671)	6/23/1999 11:45:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Amendment.I. Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [ so until incorporation states were not addressed ...] Amendment x. 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. Art. I, section 10 does not prohibit the states from establishing religion nor from prohibiting free exercise thereof.

To: jbe who wrote (41671)	6/24/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I am not a historian, but we did take all the constitutional law cases our law school provided, so have some insight your question, though a historian could do better if there is one around. There was a lot of debate early on about the relationship between the states and federal government. Some were arguing for a weak federal government, leaving most government functions in the hands of the states. Others were arguing for a stronger federation with more power in the federal government. Recall that the Articles of Confederation were the first governing document of the nation. Initially, we didn't even have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Articles were very much for a weak federal government. (As I recall, also, it had very limited taxing powers.) The States, meanwhile, passed their own constitutions, set up their legislatures, started passing laws, etc. So recall that the States already had their powers underway, were already in action, before the US as we know it came to be. Once they had it, the states were not particularly interested in yielding more power than they needed to. (Who is?) It soon became apparent that the federal level government under the Articles was ineffective to exercise even the limited powers it had. So in 1786 or 7 a convention was convened which, with the experience of the Articles and the development of the states under it, wrote the Constitution. They submitted it to the States on September 18, 1887. It was effective as of March 4, 1789 when nine states approved it; the final state approved it on May 29, 1790. This made the federal government somewhat stronger. But the States still generally wanted to keep all the power they could while delegating that power which really needed to be handled on a broader level, such as military, customs, and inter-state trade. (George Washington was president of the convention; interestingly, Thomas Jefferson was not a delegate, or at least did not sign as a delegate when the Constitution was submitted to the States.) The Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution as it was submitted to the states. However, the states rights people were worried that the federal government could take away too many rights from the people. So some states ratified it with the clear understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added. The first 10 Amendments were proposed by congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified and adopted on December 15, 1791. Although some drafters may have been in favor of a strong federal government, the now lightly regarded but then very important 10th Amendment is notable. That's the one that reads: Powers reserved to states or people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [Remember "power to the people"? A very constitutionally based slogan!] In passing this, congress and the ratifying states made pretty clear that they were in the "weaker" federal government camp. So the "why" of it was largely a) the states didn't want to lose powers they already had, b) the people knew their states but didn't know what the federal government would be like and who would control it, and were worried about a king-type figure emerging. This was still the age of strong national rulers and all powerful central governments, which the US wanted to avoid. There was certainly a fear of the unknown factor. This is a cursory skimming of the issues, and may not represent current scholarship since I've been out of law school for a while and haven't followed current work in the field, but it may move the discussion forward a step.