Judicial restraint: yes!
August 12th, 2005 by ShayneDavid’s Limbaugh’s latest column is well worth a read. He touts the amazing principle (insert sarcasm) of judicial restraint, which means that judges are not allowed to legislate from the bench. If that were the way our country operated, we wouldn’t have to waste our time reading about all the hoopla over the judicial confirmations. It was the way the Constitution’s framers intended, but unfortunately, the Tenth Amendment has been pretty much ignored the past two centuries. Constitutional lesson for the day: the Tenth Amendment says that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. Well, that means that 90% of the federal government is unconstitutional. Nobody usually notices that. 
Read my Checks and Balances: Why Judicial Powers Must Be Limited essay at left to read more.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:32 am
i just read the tenth amendment and it says; the powers not delegated to the United States, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectivly, or to the people. it says nor prohibited, well that means 90% of what you wrote is wrong, sadly you cant interpret the constitution as well as an 11th grade student
December 5th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Actually, it says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That means that Congress can only legislate on issues delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8, and states can’t legislate on powers reserved for the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, as well as powers prohibited of states in Article 1, Section 10, and Article 4. So because Social Security, Medicare, welfare, public schools, the FDA, and other gigantic huge govenment bureaucracies are not authorized in Article 1, Section 8, they’re unconstitutional.
The language in the 10th Amendment is as clear as can be; it doesn’t mean anything other than what it says. In the context of my blog post, what I’m saying is that because the Supreme Court is not authorized to decide public policy, only to decide cases between two specific parties, then all such “landmark decisions” such as Roe vs. Wade and Kelo vs. New London are unconstitutional.