This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
The current version of the 10th amendment article claims that these words were added by the clerk and thus infers that no member of the Senate proposed the change and or the change had no discussion. It appears, of course, that all of the markup was handwritten by the clerk as that was his duty and the additions were not his idea or his doing other than as a scribe. I have become quite interested in these words as it is my opinion that this addition as ratified by the states empowers the House of Representatives as the official representative of the people of the United States, to introduce any legislation such that if that legislation is approved by the Senate and President it will be valid against the states. Out of respect for the guarantee clause, these words make a 3 pronged distribution of power as opposed to just two.
If anyone has a better cite for these 3 words I would be very interested. Please see the current references in the current document. The Trucker (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting and worthwhile sidenote, but a sidenote nonetheless. If the 10th amendment is a mere tautology, it is useless and already irrelevant. If, on the other hand, a power is reserved to a different entity besides the federal government, than the federal government does not have that power, making it irrelevant exactly which other entity (a state or a group of people or the people) have said ability/power. The feds lack the power anyways. But the history of these words and edits is worth exploring and if I find more info I'll make an update. Xam2580 (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to find a way in which "the people" can exercise their reserved power. At present, "the people" have no power at all other than through elections and in some cases through "initiative" processes defined in state constitutions. It may be that these words in combination with the guarantee clause could be used to force all states to provide an "initiative" process. I have been unable to find any data that clarifies the intent of these words. More to the point, is the current interpretation of the 10th amendment correct? The Trucker (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be looking at the 10th amendment as a means of preventing the federal government from making laws that the states do not like. That seems to be the mindset of most people as it has been repeated over and over for generations. But the text when interpreted with regard to the canons of construction and interpretation award powers to "the people" as the entire people of the United States as well as the state governments. That seems to mean that any bill passed by the House of Representatives is constitutionally proper with regard to the 10th amendment. The Trucker (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
