Why was the tenth amendment passed? What was the problem and the outcome?
142023
Governments have specific rights.  Most of the Bill of Rights ammendments dealt with individual rights.  To allow the specific government rights (eminent domain comes to mind right away) the 10th ammendment was passed ot allow state governments to exercise their powers
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
1064217
In the short term, it caused a number of political shifts. One of these was the adoption of the 19th Amendment, which granted universal sufferage. (Women proved themselves to be capable of conducting domestic affairs and thus were rewarded with voting rights.) It also pushed the U.S. into the world scene as a power to be reckoned with, not as much as President Wilson would have prefered, but there was a more favourable attitude towards global issues. In the long term, it put the U.S. on the path to becoming a superpower as it had the ability to conduct military action without the concern of being invaded itself.
155955
Federalist No. 10 was basically about how a Republic (the kind of country and government we now have) can work to govern and manage a really large, really diverse country with lots of different types of people and groups (what the authors call "factions" in the paper itself). The idea was that the republic-style checks and balances and the lawmaking process in the Constitution gave minority groups a way to express their differences and be heard, and it forced negotiated settlements between majority positions and minority positions (these are political positions, by the way, not minorities like African-American, Native American, etc.).\n\nIn fact, the brilliant part of how the Founding Fathers did this was that exactly BECAUSE there were all these minority viewpoints and widely varying types of people represented in the republic, it would PREVENT a majority from exercising tyranny over those who disagreed but were smaller.\n\nThe Federalist Papers were published at a time when our population was arguing about the Constitution (remember, we were a very young country). The Federalists were the pro-Constitution people, and they were trying to win popular support for the Constitution among the people.\n\nOne of the main arguments against the Constitution was that the U.S. was such a big place, with so many different kinds of people (and religions, and backgrounds, etc.), that a Republic couldn't work. That's why out of all 85 Federalist papers, Federalist No. 10 is considered one of the most important. It argued that a constitutional republic was the right way to form our country...and for the past 230 years, it's basically worked!\n\nThere's a pretty good answer in Wikipedia, too.
1135340
One good feature of our laws is that they can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. The "Bill of Rights" which guarantee Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press etc are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  \n\nAnd there is the Supreme Court decision in "Brown v. Board of Ed" which ruled that "separate is not equal" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination.\n\nThen there have been laws for social programs which help people like Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and the legislation that created the Social Security program.  And there are laws for fair labor standards and establishing the minimum wage. \n\nThere are also anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies although these seem to be mostly ignored these days.\n\nFurthermore, a law can be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court so if a locality feels their local law is wrong, they can appeal it. \n\nAlthough in our time laws like the Patriot Act are being used against the people, it was not always so.
58970
With all due respect, your stated desire doesn’t make any sense.  The ten articles of the United States Bill of Rights are written in clear language with most economical use of the language.  There are only 462 words of content in all ten amendments.\n\nIt would be interesting to know what is your intended use.  In my seminars I find that rather than summarize them I have to expand from both a origin perspective as well as from a case law perspective.  To do less is to cloud them in misunderstandings.     \n\nIf this is a class project, have your instructor contact me and I'll explain why this is not possible, something the instructor should already know.
1047162
The gay marriage amendment, whether to put discrimination against gays into the constitution.  \n\nIt was a sham, a ploy, a ridiculous waste of time to divert the public's attention from real issues that Congress should be dealing with.  \n\nLike lately, Frist introduced a bill to ban flag burning.
441306
Nothing is perfect...\n\nThe Constitutional Amendments as they stand are excellent, unfortunately, we do not have these rights like the Constitution says. \n\nWith all the pandering to left-wing activist judges and the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals, they are slowly taking away our rights and moving toward Socialism. \n\nIf the Constitution was interpreted by the Courts instead of judges legislating from the bench, we would see that our Constitution truly is the greatest living document in the world.\n\nWhy else would we have everyone in the world trying to get into our country?
539455
Aside from the fact it would never get passed, there are all kinds of Due Processes of Law that it would contradict. The country was founded on the basis of many freedoms and the right to pursue happiness.
446597
That same year, the income tax amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Congress and was sent off to the states. The last state ratified the amendment on February 13, 1913. The Springfield Republican reported "The Sixteenth Amendment owes its existence mainly to the West and South, where individual incomes of $5,000 or over are comparatively few."[13]\n\n\nThirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.\n\nThomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and—taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems—advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
107478
The text of this important and historic amendment to the U.S. Constitution has already been identified in previous posts, however the reasoning and legislative history has not.\n\nIt was ratified on February 3, 1870.\n\nThis amendment prohibits the states or the federal government from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a voting qualification. Its basic purpose was to enfranchise former slaves. But it was not really until the Voting Rights Act in 1965, almost a century later, that this purpose was actually achieved in all states.\n\nAfter the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, southern blacks voted in numbers that on a per capita basis would probably exceed black political participation today. On both a per capita and absolute basis, more blacks were elected to political office during the period from 1865 to 1880 than at any other time in American history. Although no state elected a black governor during Reconstruction, a number of state legislatures were effectively under the control of a substantial African American caucus. These legislatures brought in programs that are considered part of government's duty now, but at the time were radical, such as universal public education. They also set aside all racially biased laws, even those prohibiting interracial marriage.
880034
Leaves the decision to the states, like the 10th amendment required in the first place.\n\nNow let's get it right with abortion.  Then we can move on.
269710
Most states were "dry states" the amendment was proposed and passed according to the constitution.
926174
That was not really a problem with the writing of it. It was ONE of the problems faced regarding how the states would be represented in Congress. The other problem regarding representation was the Great Compromise. That compromise created a bicameral legislature.
920221
Safer?  Why that emphasis?  Why not better more generally?\n\nWhat politics I would adopt would be based on the premise that we can fit government back inside the Constitution.  And most specifically, that the Tenth Amendment implies that much of what has grown up as federal bureaucracy either ought not exist at all or ought to be done by the states individually.  \n\nIn many cases, small local programs are swallowed up in the glare of federal funding.  No, the feds don't literally control the program, but they control the funding, and that controls the program to a remarkable degree.  Move that to the state level would be an improvement.  What the states do with it is up to them.  Move as much as possible to the county level, we would hope.\n\nBut the Tenth Amendment also comes right after the first nine that spell out some pretty wide areas of rights of the individual in this country, and we need to remember that the rest was left to the states or "to the people."  That is, not the business of legislation or regulation at all, but of individual decisions.\n\nSo if I was the president, I would institute a policy of Constitutional Law Reform:  fit the country back inside the Constitution.  Streamline the process for challenge of new laws based on Constitutional grounds, and use Constitutional research as standard procedure in the congress when new laws are written.\n\nMake sure people understand that we are dedicated to living within the rules of the country we set down in writing, a sacred contract with ourselves and our posterity.
777693
Federal law is created by Congress (statutory) and federal courts (federal common law). State law is created by each state legislature (statutory) and state courts (state common law).\n\nUnder Article VI of the Constitution (Supremacy Clause), federal law (statutory or court-made) preempts state law.\n\nThe answer to your underlying question comes from the interaction of the 10th Amendment with Article I of the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal govt] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."\n\nBasically, the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Unless the federal government is authorized to pass laws in a certain area, they cannot. Only the states can. \n\nThat's why most criminal laws, most family laws, most general behavioral laws -- all are state laws. Unless an area involves one of the limited federal topics (interstate commerce, the military, the post office, copyrights, etc -- see Article I Section 8), then the federal govt has no authority to pass the laws.\n\nAnd because each state is sovereign within their own jurisdiction, each can pass whatever laws they want, as long as those state laws do not conflict with federal laws or the federal Constitution. That's why laws vary by state.
796257
What exactly did you want to know?\n\nFor instance, do you want to know about the debates leading to ratification ... check here http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm\n\nThis site gives a little more general information: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/lawpres.html\n\nGood luck with your homework.