10th Amendment Misperceptions

I am all for the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The amendment is intended to prevent the federal government from encroaching on the rights of the states.

There are, however, limitations.  States, for example, cannot legally restrict free speech.  The Bill of Rights is intended to override any so-called 'local authority' that would trample on the rights of the people.  Local and state governments can be just as oppressive as the Feds.

And here is where those such as the 'Romneyites' go wrong.  The 10th Amendment is being used to justify government oppression by a state government rather than the Federal government.  So, what good is a Bill of Rights if the 10th Amendment allows state governments to trample on the general principles of liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and other precepts embodied in the Constitution?

The thing that Romneyites also fail to consider is that several of the original states had their own Bill of Rights PRIOR to the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.  Thus, states were ALSO prohibited from encroaching upon certain rights of the individual--the primary one being that INDIVIDUALS have the right to live out their lives relatively free from government intrusion.

For a state government, such as Massachusetts with 'RomneyCare,' to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance is one of the most personal encroachments upon freedom that can exist, simply because it deals with a sacred aspect of human life--health and the private records of one's health.

And frankly, the Court that upheld RomneyCare as 'constitutional' is flat wrong as is so often the case with today's courts that give scant regard to the original intent of the Founders.

So, NO!  The 10th Amendment does NOT give states unlimited powers.  THE INDIVIDUAL in the American system of government is the ultimate authority, not government itself of ANY kind--local, state, or federal.