No, it refers to the entire Constitution, which includes amendments.
No state may override any part of the Constitution, amendments included.
Sorry pal, this is settled law.
EDIT: To clarify, The tenth amendment is specifically for things not mentioned in the Constitution. Had freedom of religion not been established as part of the document, then you would be correct. Regulation of Telecommunications, for example, is something that had to be litigated and legislation written to clarify that the Federal Government does have power to regulate it since it can cross state lines and qualifies as commerce.
But because the First Amendment specifically states that Congress cannot regulate religion, that means that no state can do it either. If a power is specified to the Feds, it's a fed power. If a power is not mentioned, it is a state power.
But any restrictions that are mentioned apply to all levels of government.
Just to clarify here: You believe it was the framers' intent that the restrictions placed on government in the Constitution were only intended to apply at the federal level?
For example, you believe that if the State of Georgia decided that none of its citizens should be allowed to own any sort of firearm, that the framers thought that would be perfectly fine since it wasn't the feds doing it?
The states were sovereign and had their own governments. The federal government was separate.. it had selected powers that were supreme over states. All other powers were left to the states.
The federal government doesn't regulate guns, but states can do so according to their governments. For example the state of Georgia could require every family household to own a gun. These state laws would be up to the people of the states.
No, it refers to the entire Constitution, which includes amendments.
No state may override any part of the Constitution, amendments included.
Sorry pal, this is settled law.
EDIT: To clarify, The tenth amendment is specifically for things not mentioned in the Constitution. Had freedom of religion not been established as part of the document, then you would be correct. Regulation of Telecommunications, for example, is something that had to be litigated and legislation written to clarify that the Federal Government does have power to regulate it since it can cross state lines and qualifies as commerce.
But because the First Amendment specifically states that Congress cannot regulate religion, that means that no state can do it either. If a power is specified to the Feds, it's a fed power. If a power is not mentioned, it is a state power.
But any restrictions that are mentioned apply to all levels of government.
That's a completely of opposite view of the bill of rights than what Madison and Jefferson had. But we are smarter than they were.
Just to clarify here: You believe it was the framers' intent that the restrictions placed on government in the Constitution were only intended to apply at the federal level?
For example, you believe that if the State of Georgia decided that none of its citizens should be allowed to own any sort of firearm, that the framers thought that would be perfectly fine since it wasn't the feds doing it?
The states were sovereign and had their own governments. The federal government was separate.. it had selected powers that were supreme over states. All other powers were left to the states.
The federal government doesn't regulate guns, but states can do so according to their governments. For example the state of Georgia could require every family household to own a gun. These state laws would be up to the people of the states.