Talk:Tenther movement

Notability?

This term was completely made up by all of three websites, and really isn't important. This is just an attempt by the creator(s) of this article to strawman their political opponents as "secessionists" and "opponents of civil rights." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.87.66 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As of March 20, 2010, there are now 12 state legislatures that are bringing suits against the Obama administration based on the 10th Amendment. Agree or not, this is a pretty big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.171.106 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether there is tenth amendment related legislation in the works or not, this pejorative is insignificant and this article appears to be an attempt to use wikipedia to help spread the usage of the word much in the same way truther and birther are used pejoratively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeIz (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag (or whatever it's called) from the top, which questioned the article's notability. First of all, the article has survived AfD, so that in of itself, IMO, justifies removal. But also, since the tag was placed there nine months ago, there have been several sources added. If CNN is referring to "Tenthers", then it seems notable to me. 98.71.218.226 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's more commonly called "Tentherism," so maybe the article should be renamed or at least a redirect created? I don't know enough about Wikipedia to do it myself. 75.90.11.168 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Call to remove this unused term

Or merge it with Constitutionalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Differences between 'Tentherism' and Libertarianism

'Tenther movement should not be confused with libertarianism, although the two often have similar positions. Whereas libertarians oppose programs such as the War on Drugs on ideological grounds, seeing them as unjustified government intrusion into lives of its citizens, tenthers hold that such programs may be perfectly acceptable but only when implemented by individual states. Libertarians are opposed to sodomy laws and believe that "the government has no business in the bedroom".[6] In contrast, it has been argued by tenthers that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws in all U.S. states where they remained, was an unconstitutional federal intrusion into what should have been a states' rights area; from the tenther perspective, "there clearly is no right to sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution" and "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards".'

And yet, Ron Paul, model libertarian, supported Texas' anti-sodomy law. There's really no clear line and no reason to devote half the page to trying to separate them.

Agreed. I've removed most of this paragraph. Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The American Prospect and Think Progress? Since when are propaganda sites used as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.0.44 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's produced by the Center for American Progress - it and The American Prospect can be used. I see the latter is used to show what opponents of the Tenther movement have to say about it - are you really suggesting that we can use opponents to reference what opponents have to say? If by 'propaganda' you mean any journal that has a viewpoint, we don't exclude them for that reason. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Case Law vs Constitution

The original article claims that CASE LAW trumps the Constitution. That's the whole problem. We need to return to Constitutional Law as a basis for Government.71.43.133.98 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen movement in "see also"?

Why is the Sovereign Citizen movement listed under "see also". There are no references to parallels in the article, and there's a pretty big gap between the two... and considering the SC movement more or less involves radical fantasy about how law works, whereas the Tentherist seems more to have an understandable (though SCOTUS-rejected) view of the constitution and legal implications, the addition of it in "see also" seems almost like a non-neutral guilt-by-association deal. Christian Edward Gruber (talk)

My guess is that Sovereign Citizen movement is listed under "see also" because the Tenther movement and the SovCit movement have some things in common. I don't see the inclusion of the link as a "guilt-by-association" deal. Other Wikipedia articles contain similar links. For example, in the article on Tax protester, the "see also" section includes links to articles such as Full payment rule, Civil disobedience, and Tax resistance. The inclusion of the SovCit link does not necessarily mean that the Tenther movement theories are as wacky as the SovCit theories. And, a reading of both the Tenther article and the SovCit article would not, I believe, leave a reasonable reader with the idea that the Tenther movement is on the same low level (legally speaking) as the SovCit movement. Famspear (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Has Interpreted...

Interestingly, the idea that the Supreme Court has the unchallenged power to interpret the Constitution comes not from the Constitution, but from the Supreme Court itself.

Of further interest is that the framers of the Constitution, including Jefferson and Madison, strongly disavowed the principle of “judicial review” as it came to be declared AFTER the ratification of the Constitution.

This article is not in any way NPOV, as it assumes without question such things as the USSC power of “judicial review” from which there is no appeal.

The principle of nullification has a basis in the writings of the Framers. Judicial review has none. B. Polhemus (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)