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 : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6723)	7/3/2003 9:27:19 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

For another it would leave the states with no power because while the federal government is granted specific powers the states get their powers from the 10th amendment giving all powers not specifically granted to the feds, to "he States respectively, or to the people." Such an interpretation of the 9th amendment would give the federal judiciary unlimited power over all state decisions. There are three players in the above, the feds, the states and the people. You're suggesting that restricting the power of the states reallocates that power to the feds. I disagree. If the feds stick with what powers are formerly granted, as they should, then a reduction in the power of the states shifts power to the people. Yeah. I'm all for the power of the people to make their own bridge rules or do what they want with other consenting adults in their bedrooms. Ain't none of the business of either the feds or the states.