As I have mentioned here before, I usually sample broadcast news by simultaneously watching CNN, Fox News, BBC America and MSNBC on the DirecTV “News Mix” channel, never staying with any of them for more than a few minutes because they all are unethical, biased, and untrustworthy and it drives me CRAZY!
Just now, I saw Wolf Blitzer (has anyone ever parlayed a cool name into such a long, undeserved TV career despite persistent mediocrity?) interview an “expert,” clearly another Trump-hating law professor. She opined that President Trump “might” be violating the Constitution ( “KING! FASCIST!”) by directing ICE to again focus their illegal immigrant raids on restaurants, farms and hotels. It’s a likely violation of the Tenth Amendment, she opined. “The Tenth Amendment reserves the policing power to the states.”
That’s funny, I thought. I don’t recall the Tenth Amendment saying anything about police, and indeed, it doesn’t. What it says is that “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.”
Like the Second Amendment, the Tenth was not the Founders’ most shining hour in terms of clear, unambiguous language. The Tenth continues to be a rich and never-ending target for the Supreme Court controversies, but SCOTUS did rule, in McCulloch v. Maryland, that there is a principle of implied powers where the federal government (Congress or the Executive) can exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Obviously the ability to enforce federal law would fall under that category, but okay ICE foes, take your best shot and see what SCOTUS says.
However, what the “expert” implied was that the Tenth explicitly included policing as one of the powers reserved to the state. Wolf, either as a deceitful accomplice or as an ignorant boob (I’m guessing the latter to give him the benefit of the doubt) just sat there nodding. Thus any viewer who wasn’t moved to check the Bill of Rights (I’m guessing that’s 99.9% of CNN’s audience) was left with the false impression that President Trump is being a dictator again by directing a Federal Agency.
Let’s see: fake news, misinformation, partisan spin, deceit. Take your pick. No wonder the Axis was able to gull thousands of citizens into wasting time on “No Kings” day.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m sorry, but doesn’t claiming that the 10th Amendment reserves policing to individual states essentially knock out the Department of Justice? Is there no such thing as a federal crime now?
Just wondering how willing to die on that hill the so-called expert is.
Hey, if it helps foil Trump and undermine his Presidency, it’s worth it to these people. “By any means necessary…”
Well, after all, ditching federal enforcement of Civil Rights legislation can’t be so bad if it means they can prevent Trump from arresting and deporting illegal immigrants…
And, of course, those stare decisis stalwarts would have thrown Brown v Board of Education under the bus in order to keep Roe v Wade
Of course, they would pivot as soon as a Democrat is in office.
It’s the lack of integrity that really gets in my craw.
Yep, and the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, ICE, and the US Marshall Service. Oh, and the Department of Education, the Department of Health & Humans Services, and a whole host of other federal agencies not specifically identified in the Constitution.
jvb
So based on this interpretation of the 10th Amendment the USA should abolish FBI, ATF, NSA, and ICE?
And another malevolent law professor.
OB
I think it makes strategic sense to call her an incompetent legal advisor rather than malevolent. Hanging that moniker on her should be the kiss of death for a lawyer.
I believe it was Ken White, before he drank too deeply of the Trump Derangement Kool-Aid, who remarked that, if you ask a law professor what the law is on a given topic, there’s an unacceptable high risk that they will tell you instead what they think the law ought to be.
Sounds like Ken.
“Police”? What did the founders of this country know about “police”? If you read about the history of police in Wikipedia, you’ll see that they were present in France before the Revolution, but regarded with suspicion by English people (as a symbol of tyranny) before 1798 (the Marine Police). They patrolled the ports. Policing in London began in 1822. So anyone who thinks they see a reference to a modern police force in the US Constitution is makin’ stuff up.
“So anyone who thinks they see a reference to a modern police force in the US Constitution is makin’ stuff up.”
No! That simply can’t be….can it?
PWS
But…but…she’s an expert!
One good thing that can be said about the wording of the 10th is that if some anti-firearms zealot makes the claim that the founders meant “states” when they wrote “people” in the Second Amendment, you can ask them how they seemed to know the difference when they wrote the Tenth.