April 12, 2012 – Essay #39 – Amendment X: Our Constitution a Grant of Limited Powers to the National Government – Guest Essayist: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Catholic University School of Law; Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center


Amendment X:

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.

THE TENTH AMENDMENT

Statements about the Tenth amendment tend towards opposing extremes. Some cite the Amendment in claiming more powers than the Constitution actually leaves in the states. On the other side, some claim that the Amendment is merely a “truism,” implying it does virtually nothing. The actual meaning of the Amendment lies in between these two one-sided views.

The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

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.

The most important word is the one that does not appear in the text, i.e., “expressly.” It is common for those who place great weight on the Tenth Amendment to state incorrectly that the Amendment says “powers not expressly delegated to the United States…” The Amendment, however, pointedly omits the word expressly.

By contrast, somewhat similar language in the Articles of Confederation did include the word expressly.
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. (emphasis added)

What difference in meaning does the word “expressly” make? The difference is that which distinguishes a confederation from a government. The Articles of Confederation provides that “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other…” (emphasis added). The Articles recognize that the States retained their full sovereignty and entered into a special kind of alliance or league. The Articles constitute a treaty involving multiple sovereignties and having several purposes. As a treaty, however, it is still a contract and each State delegates only those powers expressly written into the contract. Although “[t]he Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States,” the document creates no government having the power to enforce its provisions. It provides only for states to send representatives to meet as the “United States in Congress” and to manage those powers expressly given.

The Constitution that emerged from the Convention, as all understood, was not a confederation or simply a league of friendship. Opponents of the Constitution, known as the Antifederalists, concluded that therefore the Constitution would create a consolidated or centralized government. The Federalist (written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay under the pseudonym of “Publius”) countered that the Constitution created a federal government of only limited powers and left most powers of government in the states.

Not persuaded, the Antifederalists contended that the Constitution’s limits on the federal government could and would be swept aside by its “necessary and proper clause.” Their arguments in opposition to the Constitution emphasized the document’s lack of a bill of rights. They urged that a statement of rights was necessary to protect liberty by limiting the power of the federal government and specifically to undo the effect of the “necessary and proper” clause.

The Constitution drafted at the Constitutional Convention contained no bill of rights. This was not an oversight. The Convention voted down George Mason’s proposal that a bill of rights be added. Moreover, during the Ratification period, The Federalist (#84) argued “that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.” A bill of rights was unnecessary because “a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation.” It was dangerous because it “would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than was granted.”

The Federalists and Antifederalists held opposing ideas about the best means to protect liberty. Whereas the Antifederalists gave priority to bills of rights, the Federalists distrusted the efficacy of such “parchment barriers.” Rather the Federalists drafted the Constitution on the premise that protecting liberty requires a structure of separation of powers within the federal government and a division of powers between the federal and state governments. For that reason, The Federalist said “The truth is … that the constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.”

Predictions of both the Antifederalists and Federalists have proved in part to be accurate. As the Antifederalists feared, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been used to expand the powers of the federal government greatly at the expense of the states, a trend aided (as discussed in a later essay) by the Seventeenth Amendment. The Federalists were correct that the Bill of Rights, aided by the Fourteenth Amendment’s judicially-developed doctrine of Incorporation, has been used to expand the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states.

The foundational explanation of the Necessary and Proper Clause came in Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The opinion addressed the Necessary and Proper Clause as an additional, not the primary, reason for upholding the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. Jeffersonian Republicans, many of whom had been Antifederalists, opposed this decision as an unconstitutional expansion of Congress’s powers. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion, however, was perfectly consistent with, and generally tracked language in several essays from, The Federalist.

Over the years, especially since the New Deal, the centralizers of national power have often relied on a distorted interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause which disregards the fundamental principle that the federal government is one of limited powers. Accordingly, they dismiss the Tenth Amendment as simply a “truism.” The defenders of state power, on the other hand, emphasize the Tenth Amendment, almost as if nothing else in the Constitution matters. They generally fail to understand The Federalist explanation – confirmed by Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch – that Congress has the fullness of those powers actually given to Congress and that the Constitution includes the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to leave no doubt about the fullness of the powers actually given.

When during the First Congress James Madison spoke for the Bill of Rights he had introduced, among other points he argued that they were of “such a nature as will not injure the Constitution.” Specifically, what became the Tenth Amendment did not injure the Constitution because it did not convert it to a confederation. That is to say, the Tenth Amendment pointedly did not use the word expressly.

As to any power actually given by the Constitution, Congress has the fullness of that power. Congress’s exercise of power is nevertheless limited– first by the fact that it is not given every power of government. Secondly, Congress encounters procedural limits on the implementation of its enumerated powers due to bicameralism and separation of powers. The division of powers between the federal and state governments which effectively limited Congress’s exercise of enumerated powers has been undermined by the Seventeenth Amendment’s provision for direct election of senators.

The U.S. government has over the years consolidated power to a degree feared even by the Federalists, and much more so by the Antifederalists. To point solely to the Tenth Amendment, however, as the primary limit on the expansion of federal power is to misunderstand the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is a ‘truism” in the sense that it merely confirms that the Constitution creates a federal government with a limited number of powers, those related to national defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and trade among the states. See Federalist # 23 and #45. Like the Necessary and Proper Clause, a proper interpretation of the Tenth Amendment must be connected to the Constitution’s structure of divided and separated power.

Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. is the Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Catholic University School of Law and Professor Emeritus of Law at Louisiana State University Law Center.

Please leave your thoughts on our blog below! Click the Comment Button!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “April 12, 2012 – Essay #39 – Amendment X: Our Constitution a Grant of Limited Powers to the National Government – Guest Essayist: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Catholic University School of Law; Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center”

  1. Robert Sommers says:

    As much as the Constitution is a Bill of Rights, I think it was good that an actual Bill of Rights was added. The BoR is the doorway that allows the common person into the Great Room that is the Constitution. As for the 10th Amendment, from listening to this and reading along, to me it, for the most part, says that though the Constitution is the law of the land, unless otherwise provided for in the Constitution the power of governing lies with the States and the people.

    To me this is the essesnce of what makes the United States unique. Though we have a central government the power of that government lies within the people. It is we the people that ultimately give or retain from, power to the Federal Government.

  2. Marc W. Stauffer says:

    To me, this Amendment exemplifys why, “We the People” must be actively and consistently engaged in our form of governance. When we remain silent, those in government are encouraged to take….assuming that we would rather government handle the administration of this or that right.
    If we do not want to see our governments, whether local, state or federal actively engage in the centralization of power, then we must stand and ensure that our voices, and thus our rights to have that voice are heard. We have to make sure that “We” retain authority over our government. We have to remember that our form of governance is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people…..action words that require our active participation.

  3. Peter R. Olson says:

    With all due respect to the professor, his point seems to be that the Tenth Amendment can be thrown aside whenever convenient by people pointing to the “necessary and proper” clause, so we might as well accept it. (I certainly agree with his contention that the Seventeenth Amendment completely undermined states’ rights.)

    The problem we face is that we reside in nation wherein the majority of people have no concept of the republic our founding fathers established and have totally distorted the definition of federalism to mean an all-powerful federal governmnet.

    Both parties ignore the Tenth Amendment at will (No Child Left Behind is just as unconstitutional as the Affordable Health Care Act) and the simple fact is that the inherent nature of our federal court system means that many key issues never reach the level of the Supreme Court.

    The solution lies in the state capitals, in the legislatures and governors’ offices. We need men and women in state offices who fight every day for the states’ rights that the founding fathers intended, demanded, and promised would never be lost.

    I’m no advocate of anarchy, but I am sick and tired of governors who possess backbones of over-cooked linguine. It’s time that governors who are sick of federal mandates that obviously fail the “necessary and proper clause” to start telling Washington to go to blazes.

  4. Ron says:

    I believe you are correct, Peter. The problem is the 17th Amendment. I’m sure we’ll have a spirited discussion when we hit that Amendment. The problem is I never hear anyone on any radio/TV program talk about the 17th. They talk about the 16th, because it is more personal. We need a high profile public person with charisma to take the discussion to friendly media to inform the public, who are the ones who must ultimately put pressure on the state and national legislatures to put forward repeal legislation. Who is adequately informed and willing to step up to lead this charge?

Leave a Reply

 characters available