The masks, the CDC and the judge — a battle brewing since 1944

At the risk of being forward, perhaps you could dm their contact info. I enjoy discussing constitutional theory with colleagues. I’ve also taught the topic at the university level.

So you’re relying on the indication and intent of judicial review, though it’s not specifically stated. Fair enough. I happen to agree. However, that opens the door to “what else is intended and indicated, though not specifically stated”?
You’d argue that an organization like the CDC falls outside the boundaries established by the constitution. I’d argue that it doesn’t. And as Marshall stated:
“Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language..”

10th amendment case law has really ebbed and flowed over the centuries. But if we’re talking about original intent, the Constitution was written to expand the powers of the federal government, not reduce them. The constitution was written for some parts to be open to interpretation, so as to accommodate successive generations.

SGT (Join to see) I don't even know what a DM is. And even if I did, I don't have contact info for my profs. Probably because I am "too military" but I wanted to keep a very clear boundary, and made sure that things were scrupulously professional.

SFC Casey O'Mally - It posted before I was done.

I can absolutely see an argument for the CDC, especially under the "general welfare" which I previously mentioned. I disagree, but I will concede a fair argument can be made.

I get where you are going. I think the problem is that Marshall states (and I am paraphrasing here) that the Congress was written to intentionally give Congress a wide swath of leeway within their granted powers. He goes on to argue that OBVIOUSLY if they have been vested with those duties and authorities, they obviously have the authority to do whatever is necessary - in their own judgment, not the judgment of the states or the courts - to carry out their duties and authority, as long as they stay "in bounds."

Whereas I focus on the requirement to remain in bounds within enumerated powers, you (and, to be honest, the majority of lawmakers and probably even judges), focus on the expansive authority to write laws.

Many many folks interpret this case to say that as long as Congress isn't told they specifically CANNOT do something, then if CONGRESS feels it is necessary and proper for governance, they have carte blanche. But that interpretation completely and totally negates the 10th Amendment.

But neither courts nor lawmakers have reallly cared about the 10th Amendment in at least a century. I am, in this, fighting a lost cause.

In case you can't tell, I am rather passionate about 10A, and it's (IMO) RAMPANT abuse by the federal government. I fight the 10A fight whenever I can.

“Whereas I focus on the requirement to remain in bounds within enumerated powers, you (and, to be honest, the majority of lawmakers and probably even judges), focus on the expansive authority to write laws.”

Not exactly. Off the top of my head, I could probably list at least a few hundred federal laws that should go away. I don’t support legislation, ‘just cuz’. However, the founders intended the federal government to be strong, as they realized that a state-centric, loose confederation form of government was doomed to fail. That’s as true now as it was then. The Constitution isn’t just a list of can/can’t do’s. It’s a guideline for what can and can’t be done.

If you’re looking for recent, relevant 10th amendment cases, a few good ones to look at are Murphy v NCAA, Printz v. United States, or United States v. Lopez. Lawmakers don’t not care about the 10th amendment. But as stated earlier, 10a decisions from the court have ebbed and flowed over the centuries, though there really aren’t that many landmark 10a cases in total.

In reality, the 10th amendment was nearly a superfluous add on to the original slate of amendments. In United States v. Darby Lumber Co, the court wrote that:
“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”.

If ones needs evidence of this truism, look no further the lack of landmark cases, going back to the ratification of the Constitution and 10th amendment a few years later.