Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

paleotn

(23,233 posts)

18. Tenth Amendment.

Reply to TomSlick (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 8, 2026, 08:22 PM

21 hrs ago

It doesn't need to be expansive. It's rather clear, no? And prohibition doesn't need to be explicit to have exactly that meaning. If it were, the damn thing would take up volumes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wednesdays

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking from Gavin Newsom [View all] senseandsensibility 22 hrs ago OP

We all love our Governor! skylucy 22 hrs ago #1

Oh yes we do senseandsensibility 22 hrs ago #3

K & R.................. Lovie777 22 hrs ago #2

here as well, Marc Elias DoBW 22 hrs ago #4

He'd make a good president. calimary 22 hrs ago #6

He's my favorite so far. llmart 21 hrs ago #10

thats why i reelected him before. AllaN01Bear 20 hrs ago #24

I will definitely give Newsom close consideration. ShazzieB 15 hrs ago #35

His best qualification azureblue 8 hrs ago #39

I'm surprised it wasn't all along! some_of_us_are_sane 21 hrs ago #9

He's been at the vanguard of MAGA 2.0 resistance from Day 1. BannonsLiver 22 hrs ago #5

Every state needs to do this IMMEDIATELY FakeNoose 21 hrs ago #7

You're right. It should not be necessary. hamsterjill 21 hrs ago #19

Kick Exp 21 hrs ago #8

Purple states must take the same steps. oasis 21 hrs ago #11

This would actually probably survive the supremacy clause too SSJVegeta 21 hrs ago #12

Yes, because states are in charge of elections, not the feds. wnylib 19 hrs ago #26

And it is explicitly stated in the constitution. A fact that matters to 5 whole justices so far. SSJVegeta 19 hrs ago #31

LOL popsdenver 14 hrs ago #36

I'm skeptical. TomSlick 21 hrs ago #13

Nope. Article I, Section 4. paleotn 21 hrs ago #15

I don't read Article I, Section 4 that expansively. TomSlick 21 hrs ago #17

Tenth Amendment. paleotn 21 hrs ago #18

That's a better argument TomSlick 20 hrs ago #20

You're retired JAG, in Arkansas, and you're Texas two step dancing MerryBlooms 19 hrs ago #29

The legislation can be written so that a proper judicial warrant would be needed with reason to believe muriel_volestrangler 8 hrs ago #38

Post removed Post removed 21 hrs ago #16

Federal agents are also armed and authorized to shoot someone threatening with a weapon. TomSlick 20 hrs ago #21

depends who gets the drop on who dave99 20 hrs ago #25

Ridiculous and illegal senseandsensibility 20 hrs ago #22

No, that's not how any of this works. MerryBlooms 19 hrs ago #30

Democrats have to be proactive in these treacherous times dlk 21 hrs ago #14

ding. this . AllaN01Bear 20 hrs ago #23

Post removed Post removed 19 hrs ago #27

I don't know who you're talking about senseandsensibility 19 hrs ago #28

This is exactly what we need!! Proactive vs reactive!!! Pisces 18 hrs ago #32

He thinks and operates from a broad perspective. Sogo 18 hrs ago #33

THis is good, but completely misss the point Bluetus 16 hrs ago #34

i totally misunderstood the headline orleans 14 hrs ago #37

Leading the way. Martin68 4 hrs ago #40

I believe there are now meds for ballot seizures. C Moon 3 hrs ago #41