Tenth Amendment Sets Galt Free or It’s the Constitution Stupid

Gayle Plato-Besley, M.Ed.

Before I chose to be at home and in this current life of Mom, esq.,  I was that high school history teacher you didn’t listen to during Gov’t and Econ class right after lunch. Yeah, I remember you; you slept on the desk and folded footballs up with your notes. 🙂

What I was trying to teach you then that now you see matters, is that you have rights and they’re only as good as your knowledge of them. I also did a great lesson on the Bill of Rights that you blew off so you could get stoned behind the bleachers. Yeah, I knew you did it and I saw you!   

So here’s whattya missed:  Read the Constitution, and specifically look at the Tenth Amendment.  It’s the most important one we got when The People get rowdy.
But before you get all randy and run down to the town hall to protest with a used tea bag in you pocket, you better get smart. Take a moment to reflect as John Galt is a character, but the actual point made by Ayn Rand is that the individual is the power, and the centralized government is not. (Personally I prefer Howard Roake anyway, but then I love architecture so)

Tenth Amendment:

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.

The debate of our near future is the importance of this amendment.

This is an excellent video of the current collective angst with the pending revolt and socialization of this country. Remember also what I’ve said, Organize With A Purpose:


  1. Antifederalist says

    I don’t have too much trouble with what you’ve said, but the Tenth Amendment is rendered a nullity if doesn’t refer back to Article 1, Section 8, those delegated powers that the 10th refers to. In fact, many citizens at the time the Bill of Rights was being considered argued that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because their existence suggested that the Constitution delegated more to the federal government than the States agreed to give. Many thought the Constitution was a stronger limitation on the federal government’s power as it was.

    I’m of the mind that the Bill of Rights isn’t necessary. I believe in the most restrictive reading of Article 1, Section 8 possible. If it’s not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, the fed’s can’t do it. It’s just that simple. Problems arise when, like the liberals, you read the Constitution expansively. But our Founders warned us against such readings, and those warnings are lost on the liberals, but no one ever accused them of having critical thinking skills.

    So, Gayle, while I argee with what you’ve said, I wish you had taken the tack that a restrictive reading of Article 1, Section 8 is necessary.

  2. You are a terrible anti-federalist if you think the Bill of Rights isn’t necessary.

  3. Antifederalist says

    Historically, the Antifederalists may have been the proponents of the Bill of Rights, but in the end, Hamilton was right on the issue. That’s why we have retards who believe that the Constitution is a “living document” that can mutate to mean whatever they want it to mean (and consequently mean nothing) and that the Constitution has “penumbras”. Besides, TJ, the most prominent Antifederalist, was (in)famous for contradicting his principles. Even if he was, I assure you that I’m FAR more consistently in favor of small, limited government than he was, or any of SA’s readers may be.

  4. Antifederalist,

    It is rare that I get to have a discussion on the Bill of Rights and Federalist No. 84! I’m glad I get to have it with you. I don’t think Hamilton would be against the idea of a “living” constitution at all. In fact, I think he’d be quite fond of Justice Breyer’s use of “active liberty”. His central argument in Federalist No. 84 was that the intent of the Constitution, as a document founded on the principle of liberty, made it clear that the government could not assume powers that would infringe on that (I believe the specific example he uses is freedom of the press). Hamilton firmly believed in a large national government that intervened in economic matters and was one of the greatest advocates for implied powers, providing those powers did not go against the original intent of the Constitution.

    Though I do agree with your comments on T.J. haha

Leave a Reply