Nor did I say otherwise. Enumerated =/= conferred. However, as soon as you or CG start talking about 'Innate,' the next question that arises is 'Well, wotdahell does THAT mean - which rights are innate to which entity?' - and the only clear answer that doesn't devolve into pointless squabbling is that the powers enumerated for one entity or another are at least off the debate table.
I swear, despite your long absence, you are as much into pointless rhetorical grandstanding as ever. You ask questions not because you are interested in getting actual answers or relevant information, but as a mere prelude to make sure you have an audience for your Constitutional bloviating.
Wow, it didn't take long for you to personalize your response, did it! And while you didn't say otherwise, your argument strongly implied otherwise, but i left you to step in it, as you have.
Not only is it "pointless rhetoric", but it's "pointless rhetorical grandstanding"! How cheesy is that! Yes, let us talk about pointless,insipid rhetoric.
Someone has to be one hell of an ignorant, statist RINO, to imagine that consideration of our individual rights, the KEYSTONE of this country's constitution and principles, involves any sort of "pointless rhetorical grandstanding".
I don't want an "audience', you wind bag, but what I do want is that once free people of this country actually think about what our government is doing, and the implications of those actions, rather than just facilitating the further undermining of this country. After watching the first series of debates, and their address of Romneycare, anyone with any degree of sense and depth should be asking themselves why it would okay for the states to do what the federal government cannot, particularly in this regard, creating an obligation where literally there is no action by the individual at all!
Given your leap to this personalizaiton, it is clear you believe that Massachusetts has the "right" (power) and perhaps even the obligation to make the socialist demand of its citizens that everyone buy healthcare (and some support the costs of the others). Yet if this were true, how is it that this country did not need any such dictate of healthcare for the 200+ years prior to Romneycare?
INNATEWhile I'm mildly curious who "CG" is, just to get some insight into the barb you believe you've stuck me with, the fact is I really don't give a damn about your insular backyard mentality and its pointless references.
The relevance of "innate", and to which entity to which it belongs, really shouldn't be all that much of a mystery, except for to current-day progressive statists. Quite obviously something as personal as the care and maintenance of one's own body, is an innate right and responsibility to each and every individual themself!
NO ONE could possibly imagine that this care and maintenance of citizen's bodies is "INNATE" to each various States of this country, unless one has a very twisted statist progressive socialist ideology, and really doesn't believe in any sort of individual rights whatsoever, but rather in collective obligations and directed mandates upon our lives.
Perhaps each of those States do own the individuals within its borders after all, eh? And our so-called indivdual "right's" are nothing more then the choice of what other state we might flee to in order to avoide the tyranny of our fellow man? This is what both Romney and Perry would have us believe, that the fifty states are just a pelthora in testing experimentation grounds where bold new ways to deny freedoms might be found. Such a belief has this country's founders spinning in their graves.
However since this is only pointless rhetorical grandstanding, I will assume that you have no need to provide further input into this consideration, and you particularly will not provide any constitutional rationale for your belief. But if you were to stick around, I'd ask you on what terms you actually imagine yourself any sort of conservative... if that is actually the case.
