quote:
Originally posted by JermCool:
Care to expand? I'm relatively certain it hasn't been changed in the last 220-some years. LOL
It Hasn't Been Changed, However, It as Of late Appears To Be more and more Ignored Or
The United States has had from its beginning a strong force fighting for consolidation of power at the national level. In the constant debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton that seems to define the Washington years, this was Hamilton's (and the Federalists') approach. Sectionalism and nationalism battled constantly. Chief Justice John Marshall worked to increase federal power. He was appointed by the first President John Adams, whose Alien and Sedition Acts caused the Democratic-Republicans to conceive the beginnings of Nullification Theory--the idea that states can nullify acts of the federal government that they do not agree with.
Expansionism and the idea of Manifest Destiny (exemplified by Polk's presidency) promoted nationalism, but there was still an undercurrent of sectionalism which reacted to this; wherever the U.S. expanded, the issue of slavery was broached, creating conflict between the regions. For this reason, Henry Clay and others opposed expansionism.
Andrew Jackson did not support a strong federal government per se, but a strong Union, which he saw as the best way to provide equality of opportunity for the common man. The Nullification Crisis, dealing with South Carolina's distaste for the "Tariff of Abominations" placed federal and state power head-to-head. Federal power won, but seeds were planted for future conflict.
The Dred Scott case placed local over federal power, an extremely important issue in the debate over slavery. Finally, this debate led to the Civil War. The defeat of the South was a huge blow to states' rights.
Increasingly strong presidents are another reason for the increase in federal power; Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagon, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and now George W. Bush have all been strong presidents. The nation has increasingly looked to the president as the leading figure in the nation.
The battle over civil rights placed federal power against state power; this issue in particular has had a large role in increasing federal power, as has the increasing participation of the United States in the world. In an isolationist United States, the national government had less pertinence than in a United States heavily involved in international affairs; the national government controls the military, has treaty-making powers, etc.
The increase in national judicial power has also played a role. The Supreme Court has gone from an institution which Alexander Hamilton called "the least dangerous" of the national government's three branches to being a sort of final arbiter on issues of great, often cultural, importance. As an institution with the power to strike down state laws, its rise in power has marked a rise in federal power in general. This rise began with the Chief Justiceship of John Marshall (beginning in 1801) and is exemplified best in the very important Chief Justiceship of Earl Warren, who changed national policy on issues from abortion rights to prayer in schools.
Finally, culture has played a large role as well. With national broadcasting of radio and--more importantly--television, Americans identified themselves less by state and more by their nation. Better communication and transportation technology had the same effect. When we define ourselves in terms of America, we look to our national government to address issues that matter to us.
Robert E. Lee supported union but became a general for the Confederacy because he was, in his opinion, first and foremost a Virginian. This way of thinking is basically nonexistent today.
Well, the basic problem is that there are certain clauses in the constitution that grant very broad powers to the federal government. Interstate commerce clause, equal protection clause, due process clause are the best examples. The courts keep reading these clauses more and more broadly, and eventually most things fall under one of them, greatly limiting the scope of the tenth amendment.
The Topics Are Endless Concerning The constitution and bill of Rights. Not to mention The Amendments That seem To Get around It.
If You Asked 100 Americans If They Felt It Was Being Upheld In Todays USA, I Would Bet At Least 80% Would Say No.
It Is Much Worse In Some STATES than others.
Add to del.icio.us
illegals
illegals, cheats, fraudsters
USC
Uncle SAM
You Are Excluded From The List. 
