"Do we really need this amendment?"

I think we're talking past each other here. I'm saying that ideally, Congress and the President are all the elected officials we'd need. We wouldn't need state congresspeople.

I have a feeling that calling my congressman to complain about the street light not being replaced or garbage not being picked up will not be his highest priorities. I'm all for local elected officials.
 

Thanos6

Banned
I have a feeling that calling my congressman to complain about the street light not being replaced or garbage not being picked up will not be his highest priorities. I'm all for local elected officials.

You wouldn't need an elected official for that. You would just call the local street department or sanitation department or what have you and find out what the problem is. In Ideal World, which as we have all agreed we are not yet occupying.
 
You wouldn't need an elected official for that. You would just call the local street department or sanitation department or what have you and find out what the problem is. In Ideal World, which as we have all agreed we are not yet occupying.

What do you mean by local street or sanitation department? Who established those?
 
I don't think that giving the states rights was a bad idea, I'm not a fascist, but I do think that a lot of governors and law-maker use that amendment to give the states a little too much say in what the law looks like, when the decisions should really be made by congress.

The 10th Amendment doesn't grant any new powers (or rights) to the states beyond those they already had.

The Constitution as a whole lists the powers granted to the federal government by the people. The powers reserved to the states also come from the people, but those powers are listed in the state constitutions.
 
Top