Content deleted Content added
Racheljung813 (talk | contribs) |
208.44.170.105 (talk) awesome Tags: Replaced blanking Visual edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{US Constitution article series}} |
|||
The '''Tenth Amendment''' ('''Amendment X''') to the [[United States Constitution]], which is part of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], was ratified on December 15, 1791.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |title=The Bill of Rights: A Transcription |accessdate={{date|2010-09-20}} |publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration|United States National Archives and Records Administration]]}}</ref> It expresses the principle of [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]] and [[states' rights]], which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the [[federal government of the United States|federal government]] possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. |
|||
The amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789 during its first term following the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)#Drafting and signing|Constitutional Convention]] and ratification of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite of such ratification<ref name="bor">{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html|author=National Archives|title=Bill of Rights|accessdate=March 7, 2016}}</ref> particularly to satisfy demands by the [[Anti-Federalism]] movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government. |
|||
In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of [[federalism]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cooper|first1=Charles|title=Essay on the Tenth Amendment:Reserved Powers of the States|url=http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/10/essays/163/reserved-powers-of-the-states|accessdate=September 11, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Justice Robert F. Utter |url=http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol7/iss3/2/ |title="Freedom and Diversity in a Federal System: Perspectives on State Constitutions and the Washington Declaration of Rights" by Justice Robert F. Utter |publisher=Digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu |date=2010-07-18 |accessdate=2015-10-29}}</ref> |
|||
== Text == |
|||
The full text of the amendment reads as follows: |
|||
{{quote|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-11.pdf|title=Tenth Amendment – Reserved Powers – Contents|author=''[[United States Government Printing Office]]''|publisher=GPO.gov}}</ref>}} |
|||
[[Image:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg|190px|thumb|The Bill of Rights in the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]]] |
|||
{{wide image|Amendment_10.jpg|1999px|The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to just show the text that would later be ratified as the Tenth Amendment}} |
|||
== Drafting and adoption == |
|||
The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the [[Articles of Confederation]]: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."<ref name="Yale University Avalon Project">{{cite web|url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm#art2|title=Articles of Confederation from Yale University|accessdate=2008-12-16|publisher=[[Yale Law School]] Avalon Project}}</ref> After the Constitution was ratified, South Carolina Representative [[Thomas Tudor Tucker]] and Massachusetts Representative [[Elbridge Gerry]] separately proposed similar amendments limiting the [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied [[implied powers]].<ref name="House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution">{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs6.html| title= House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution|accessdate=2007-12-16|publisher=[[University of Chicago]] }}</ref> [[James Madison]] opposed the amendments, stating that "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia."<ref name="House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution"/> When a vote on this version of the amendment with "expressly delegated" was defeated, [[Connecticut]] Representative [[Roger Sherman]] drafted the Tenth Amendment in its ratified form, omitting "expressly."<ref name="Bordewich">{{Cite book|title=The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government|last=Bordewich|first=Fergus M.|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=2016|isbn=978-1451691931|location=New York City, NY|page=130}}</ref> Sherman's language allowed for an expansive reading of the powers implied by the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].<ref name="Bordewich"/><ref name="Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights'">{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/constitutional-myth-7-the-10th-amendment-protects-states-rights/241671/|title=Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights'|first= Garrett |last= Epps|work=[[The Atlantic]]|accessdate=2013-06-26}}</ref> |
|||
When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary: |
|||
<blockquote>I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html |title= Bill of Rights Documents: Document 11: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution | work=The Founders' Constitution| publisher= University of Chicago. 8 June; 21 July; 13, 18–19 August 1789| accessdate= 19 June 2015 }}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights.<ref>''Gibson v. Matthews'', 926 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/926/532/258315/ 532], 537 ([[6th Cir.]] 1991): "The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time...."</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Calabresi| first1= Steven |last2= Prakash| first2= Saikrishna| title= The President's Power to Execute the Laws| journal= [[Yale Law Journal]]| volume= 104 |year= 1994|quote=The message of the Tenth Amendment is that expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to lists of governmental powers.}}</ref> The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication. |
|||
The phrase "..., or to the people." was appended in handwriting by the clerk of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] as the Bill of Rights circulated between the two Houses of Congress.<ref name="LA Weekly">{{cite web|url=http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2011/09/henry_rollins_the_column_heave.php|title=Henry Speaks On His Consciousness-Expanding Trip to the Library of Congress With Ian MacKaye|accessdate=2011-11-16|first= Henry Lawrence |last=Rollins}}</ref><ref>[https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/bor/ Draft of Bill of Rights, September 9, 1789], U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, The Center for Legislative Archives, Senate Revisions to House-passed Amendments to the Constitution</ref> |
|||
== Judicial interpretation == |
|||
The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a [[truism]] by the Supreme Court. In ''[[United States v. Sprague]]'' (1931) the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Sprague|volume=282|page=716|pin=733-34|year=1931}}.</ref> |
|||
States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of [[organized labor|labor]] and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from ''[[United States v. Darby Lumber Co.]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Darby Lumber Co.|volume=312|page=100|pin=124|year=1941}}.</ref> reads as follows: |
|||
{{quote|The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.}} |
|||
=== Forced participation or commandeering === |
|||
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in ''[[New York v. United States]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=New York v. United States|link=|volume=505|page=144|pin=|year=1992}}.</ref> for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (e.g. by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see ''[[South Dakota v. Dole]]'',<ref name=Dole>{{ussc|name=South Dakota v. Dole|link=|volume=483|page=203|pin=|year=1987}}.</ref> or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. |
|||
In 1997, the Court again ruled that the [[Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act]] violated the Tenth Amendment in ''[[Printz v. United States]]''.<ref name=Printz>{{ussc|name=Printz v. United States|link=|volume=521|page=898|pin=|year=1997}}.</ref> The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Antonin Scalia]], writing for the majority, applied ''New York v. United States'' to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional.<ref name=Printz/> |
|||
In 2012, in ''[[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius |
|||
|volume=567|page=519|pin=|year=2012}}.</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], writing for the Court, held that the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (commonly referred to as the ACA or Obamacare) improperly coerced the States to expand [[Medicaid]]. He classified the ACA's language as coercive because it effectively forced States to join the federal program by conditioning the continued provision of Medicaid funds on States agreeing to materially alter Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals who fell below 133% of the poverty line. |
|||
In 2018, in ''[[Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association]]'', the Supreme Court ruled that the [[Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992]], which prohibited states from legalizing [[sports betting]], violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and invalided the entire law.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-justices-strike-down-federal-sports-gambling-law/|title=Opinion analysis: Justices strike down federal sports gambling law (Updated) - SCOTUSblog|date=2018-05-14|work=SCOTUSblog|access-date=2018-05-15|language=en-US}}</ref> |
|||
=== Commerce clause === |
|||
In modern times, the [[Commerce Clause]] has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Classical Liberal Constitution|last=Epstein|first=Richard A.|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-0-674-72489-1|location=Cambridge, MA|page=13}}</ref> |
|||
In the 20th century, complex economic challenges arising from the [[Great Depression]] triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Classical Liberal Constitution|last=Epstein|first=Richard A.|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-0-674-72489-1|location=Cambridge, MA|page=36}}</ref> |
|||
In ''[[Wickard v. Filburn]]'' (1942),<ref>{{ussc|name=Wickard v. Filburn|volume=317|page=111|pin=|year=1942}}.</ref> in the context of [[World War II]], the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm{{spaced ndash}}that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat. |
|||
In ''[[Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority]]'' (1985),<ref>{{ussc|name=Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority|link=|volume=469|page=528|pin=|year=1985}}.</ref> the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the ''Garcia'' decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice", and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held "...we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA ... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." |
|||
In ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Lopez|514|549|1995}}.</ref> a federal law mandating a "[[gun-free school zone|gun-free zone]]" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 ''Garcia'' opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject. |
|||
Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]''.<ref>{{ussc|name=Gonzales v. Raich|volume=545|page=1|pin=|year=2005}}.</ref> In this case, a California woman sued the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] after her [[medical cannabis]] crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical cannabis was explicitly made legal under California state law by [[California Proposition 215 (1996)|Proposition 215]]; however, [[cannabis (drug)|cannabis]] is prohibited at the federal level by the [[Controlled Substances Act]]. Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis ''affects'' the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis ''could'' enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the ''Wickard v. Filburn'' decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. |
|||
=== Supremacy Clause === |
|||
''Cooper v. Aaron'', a 1958 Supreme Court case that dealt with states' rights and the Tenth Amendment, came about when conflicts arose in direct response to the ruling of another landmark case, ''Brown v. Board of Education''. In 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously decided on ''Brown v. Board of Education'' declaring racial segregation of children in public schools unconstitutional.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka|title=Brown v. Board of Education|first=|date=|website=History|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=May 25, 2018}}</ref> Following the decision, the court ordered "district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation 'with all deliberate speed'".<ref name=":0" /> In other words, the Court's decision not only ruled segregation as an unconstitutional and illegal practice, but also prompted all public schools to open its doors to black students and provide access to facilities to white and black students equally. This ruling quickly spurred upsetting conflicts between those trying to enforce the ruling and those refusing to abide by it. |
|||
Among those opposing the decision and all efforts of desegregation ordered by the Court was the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus.<ref name=":0" /> In Little Rock, Arkansas, a group of nine black students known as the "Little Rock Nine" was to attend the previously all-white Central High School under the school board's attempt to follow the order of ''Brown''. However, the tension between the state legislature and the Governor versus the Supreme Court and the federal government became severe when Governor Faubus ordered the National Guard to prevent the nine black students from entering the high school and President Eisenhower responded by sending federal troops to escort them in.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration|title=Little Rock Nine|last=|first=|date=|website=History|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=May 25, 2018}}</ref> Because the Little Rock school board implementing the desegregation program fell under both the state and federal jurisdiction, it sought to alleviate itself from this distraught situation through legal means. |
|||
Five months after the integration crisis happened, the school board filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas requesting a two and a half year delay in implementing desegregation.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Farber|first=Daniel|date=1982|title=The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law: Cooper v. Aaron Revisited|url=|journal=University of Illinois Law Review|volume=1982|pages=387-412|via=HeinOnline}}</ref> Although the district court granted the relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on August 18, 1958 and stayed its mandate pending appeal to the supreme Court.<ref name=":1" /> By this time, the incident had evolved into a national issue: it had become a debate on not only racism and segregation but also states' rights and the Tenth Amendment. |
|||
The Court, citing first, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI declaring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and second, the ''Marbury v. Madison'' decision asserting the Court as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution as evidence of their superior authority, reaffirmed the decision of ''Brown'' and held that the states must abide by the Court's decisions despite their disagreement with them.<ref name=":1" /> Expectedly, many states' right advocates and state officials criticized the ruling as an attack on the Tenth Amendment that reserves the states' right to resist the implementation of federal law or the Federal Constitution.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Bhagwat|first=Ashutosh|date=2008|title=Cooper v. Aaron and the Faces of Federalism|url=|journal=Saint Louis University Law Journal|volume=52|pages=1087-1113|via=HeinOnline}}</ref> Moreover, they claimed the Court's decision on ''Cooper'' as being inconsistent with the constitutional vision of the Framers.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
Though the historical and political background to the rise of ''Cooper v. Aaron'' was a segregation issue, the outcome of it was largely a Tenth Amendment issue. Whether the supremacy clause that the Supreme Court used to enforce its authority on the states is a violation of the Tenth Amendment or not is still being debated. |
|||
=== Federal funding === |
|||
The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in ''[[Printz v. United States]]''.<ref name=Printz/> However, where Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programs, or otherwise regulate, there are, arguably, certain incentives in the national government encouraging States to become the instruments of such national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One incentive is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another incentive is that implementation of federal programs at the state level would in principle limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
|||
For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as [[cooperative federalism]]. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with [[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act|IDEA]]. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) [[speed limit]], .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year [[drinking age]]<ref name=Dole/> were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws (though the national speed limit has since been repealed). |
|||
== See also == |
|||
* [[State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States]] |
|||
* [[States' rights]] |
|||
* [[Tenther movement]] |
|||
== References == |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
== External links == |
|||
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10toc_user.html CRS Annotated Constitution: Tenth Amendment], Cornell's Annotated Constitution |
|||
* [http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Tenth Amendment Center] – works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. |
|||
* Lindner, Doug. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tenth&elev.htm Exploring Constitutional Conflicts] – explores some of the issues and controversies that surround the US Constitution |
|||
{{US Constitution}} |
|||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tenth Amendment To The United States Constitution}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tenth Amendment To The United States Constitution}} |