Sorry I have taken a bit of a tangent lately. News events have come across my plate that I found too enticing not to comment on.

"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." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

First of all, the appropriate title of the Constitution is as it reads above, and in my undergraduate history text (which was replaced after I took this course, so I kept it):

The Constitution of the United States of America.

"Why not the United States Constitution?" you ask.

It is an epiphany that must be realized but that has been shrouded by over two-hundred years of false opinions and incorrect interpretations. Wrong applications of intent, or outright seeking to supplant the existing government, as put in place by the Constitution, with another ideology.

I say epiphany because the United States of America are just that according to the Constitution: American States, as in Nation-States, United as one. Notice that I said "the United States are," not "the United States is."

Do you understand the distinction?

The States who sent delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss the formation of a new governmeent did not do so with the intention of ceding powers to this new national government that they could take care of themselves. They had no intention of, having just finalized their own independence from Britain earlier in the same decade in the Treaty of Paris, signing over their sovreign powers to a tyrant in the New World.

No, the States had every intention of maintaining powers that they held under the Articles of Confederation that they did not deem necessary for the National government to oversee.

All they wanted the new government to oversee and ensure was trade between the States, who maintained their complete independence and sovreignty under the Articles of Confederation, trade between the United States and foreign powers, and defense of the common Union against the same.

Now, has it been necessary for certain entities to be brought into existence at the Federal level since that time? Certainly. We live, today, in a post-Industrialized society (dare I say world?). With the advent of such inventions as the combustion engine, gas-powered electric plants, and the increased use of rivers for shipping, it is necessary, for example, to preserve the environment, as prior to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency the enforcement of environmental policy was spotty at best.

However, we have swung hard to the side of government oversight and enforcement and away from the concepts of small government and State control. If we wish to proceed further down the current path then we must amend the Constitution to allow current practice and to proceed further because current practice, since roughly the New Deal under Roosevelt, is in complete contradiction to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the United States are (again, note grammar) to continue to allow themselves to be dominated by the Federal level of government, which invades such issues as stem cell research, abortion, marriage, capital punishment, prayer and religious expression, and even such historical issues as slavery, segregation, and obscure topics dealt with in, say, the 11th Amendment, as if the Federal government, and specifically the Federal Judiciary, have any stated right or power to oversee such topics, then we must explicitly give such powers to the national government and not continue to ignore the 10th Amendment and the Doctrine of States' Rights.

Actually, these issues were discussed by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Several asked if the State governments ought to be abolished under the Constitution due to the nature of its powers, etc. They voted on the matter and it was decided that, no, States would only be ceding powers to the national government that pertained to Interstate or International matters, and that Intrastate affairs would best be left to the States to deal with for themselves.

Dare I say, this is the only reason that the Constitution was ratified? I put forward that no State, having just shed the tyrannical British monarch, would have laid down all arms and surrendered all authority to a government far from its own borders and ratified such a document. More likely, the delegates would have been castigated for framing such a document and another path would have been tread.

The 10th Amendment is very clear in its language. No powers not given over to the national government in the text of the Constitution are to be deemed ceded by the States, then or today, to the national government. There is discussion over the inclusion or exclusion of the term 'explicitly' or 'implicitly' in the language of the Amendment. It is irrelevent. A power not granted is a power not granted. And a power taken is a power taken.

Take for example Social Security. The federal government in the New Deal took the power to plan and provide for retirement from the States and individuals. Now, whether or not we need any level of government to oversee such a matter is irrelevent. The simple fact is that my 401 (k) and Individual Retirement Accounts have averaged 20% the last couple of years, where the Social Security system might cover the rate of inflation.

Now, I went to grad school and earned a Masters of Business Administration in Finance in order to be able to gain employment that would pay a living wage and allow me the ability to invest some of my income with the intention of buying a nice place in my old age and traveling around the world comfortably.

Social Security does not provide for that. Before Roe v. Wade (1973) robbed us of our future young work force, the purpose of Social Security was to provide a little bit for everybody in their old age.

Now, who votes in greater percentages than other demographic groups? Old people.

Now, who gets Social Security? Old people. Worked the same then as it does today. Today, you don't touch old people's retirement accounts or the full wrath of the AARP and its membership is felt quickly and painfully.

At the time of the New Deal? Suddenly you have an entire generation of old people who, for whatever reason, had not properly cared for their old age who get handed full retirement at taxpayer expense--who didn't have to pay a penny into the system!

The argument of whether Social Security will be around for my generation or not is a moot point. With the Social Security system, I am paying 12% of my salary into a system that might return the equivalent amount in today's dollars in 30-some years.

Now, a rudimentary assessment of the stock market's performance over the last 15-20 years, if that continues out into the next 30 year's future, tells one that relying on the Social Security system rather than the finance industry is folly.

The purpose of government is to grow and get bigger, increase revenue (taxes), and repeat the preceding.

The purpose of industry is to grow and get bigger , increase revenue (commerce), and repeat the preceding.

See the similarity?

See the difference?

The similarity is that government takes from those who produce in the form of tax.

The difference is that government does not engage in commerce. It does not generate profit, which is taxed. Therefore, it is better to let for-profit industry engage in commerce, produce profit, and tax that profit than to let government take over a piece of that commercial interaction and interfere with established, accepted, proven economic law.

How does this relate? Simple. Make the federal government relinquish control over that 12% of my salary and allow me to invest it myself. I will retire a millionaire many times over where the government will never allow that possibility.

A simple rule is this: The Social Security system will never make a millionaire out of its recipients.

A more complicated rule is this: A wise person invests out of the fruits of their labor and their little invested over time becomes more, and more, until, as the Bible says so eloquently, "A wise man leaves an inheritence for his children's children."

The federal government, in the Social Security Act, robbed individuals of the power to control 12% of their income as well as all investments that might result from their control over this income. And the federal government has in other Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Judicial Opinions repeated this 20th-Century example of Unconstitutional behavior repeatedly throughout its history, almost since day one (see 11th Amendment's history on wikipedia.com).

The 10th Amendment is there for a reason. It is a part of the Bill of Rights, which means that if the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution agreed on the first 10 Amendments, it is pretty darned important. We are wise not to forget its words so quickly:

"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." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

Amend it. Replace it. But don't keep ignoring it!