View source for Tenther movement - RationalWiki

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:RationalWiki]]
[[Category:Tenther movement]]
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.-->
{{URL | url = https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/States%27_rights#Tenther_movement}}
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} -->
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} -->
{{End URL}}
{{DES | des = "In recent history, the mantra of "states' rights" has found a new suit to wear: The Tenthers.[7] Because they take an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, they believe that any power not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states, and that most of existing federal law is therefore invalid." | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=Tenther movement - RationalWiki|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=Tenther movement - RationalWiki|quotes=true}}

{{Text |
Tenther movement[edit]
In recent history, the mantra of "states' rights" has found a new suit to wear: The Tenthers.[7] Because they take an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, they believe that any power not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states, and that most of existing federal law is therefore invalid. They are named after the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says:

“”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.
Though the term "states' rights" is still bandied about, the Tenthers have gotten more traction as the former term has become seen as an increasingly racist dog-whistle. Tenthers tend to be conservative or libertarian, although the movement seems to have attracted many with a narrow agenda against some federal law, like those who oppose the War on Drugs, religious dominionists who want to bring back state religions, tax protesters and even some gay activists. The Teabaggers of course, have latched onto this movement to conveniently declare any law they don't like unconstitutional. The Tenthers have even invoked the language of nullification, i.e. the ability of a state to ignore or override federal law. Apparently, they know their case law better than all the Supreme Courts that have declared nullification invalid since the 19th century, starting with Prigg v. PennsylvaniaWikipedia's W.svg[2] in 1842 - though on certain issues like the War on Drugs there's no constitutional issue, as the Supreme Court has determined that states have no obligation to assist in the enforcement of federal law. They also seem to know better than the Constitution itself, having overlooked these clauses:

The Necessary and Proper Clause:
“”The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Taxing and Spending Clause:
“”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Commerce Clause:
“”[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Oh, and of course, there's a whole bunch of case law against this notion. For starters, in 1819, SCOTUS ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government implied powers in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.Wikipedia's W.svg The Court ruled against secession in Texas v. White.[8] In United States v. Darby,[9] the court had this to say:

“”The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
However, while the above clauses have been cited to expand federal powers to a ludicrous extent, such as empowering federal involvement in the War on Drugs, it has never been the law that Congress has plenary power to do what it pleases. Such a reading would mean that most of Article I, § 8 is just redundant verbiage, a position that no one is willing to admit to taking. Instead, the Tenth Amendment has been used to strike down such provisions of federal law as § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Everything is unconstitutional![edit]
Some things not found in the Constitution we'd have to live without:

NASA
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
Political parties, primaries, and caucuses
The Air Force
The FDA and EPA
The Louisiana Purchase
Tenthers say the darn'dest things[edit]
Politicians embracing Tenther arguments:

Joe Miller: Unemployment insurance is unconstitutional
Sharron Angle: The UN is unconstitutional
Mike Lee: Child labor laws are unconstitutional
The GOP's Pledge to America:
“”We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all 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.
}}