10

Amendment 10 (Noor Nassar)

Video

Written Component

The 10th Amendment is commonly understood to mean that powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution are given to state governments or the people. Essentially, the federal government’s power is only derived from the Constitution. The amendment does not change the relationship between the powers given to state governments and federal governments, but it emphasizes that state governments may establish and practice their own laws, as long as they do not conflict with the jurisdiction of the federal government. 

In 1787, the original draft of the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. This is because federalists strongly believed that the Bill of Rights would imply that the federal government has powers beyond what is explicitly given in the Constitution. They argued that the federal government had limited and strictly enumerated powers and therefore there was no need to clarify individual rights. However, without a Bill of Rights, several states refused to ratify the Constitution because they believed that people’s individual liberties needed to be explicitly protected to ensure the American people couldn’t be taken advantage of by the federal government. The 10th amendment serves the purpose of addressing the Federalists’ concerns by stating that the federal government can only exercise rights explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court often relied on the tenth amendment to push back against assertions of national power. Additionally, historians argue that the tenth amendment has often been misinterpreted in political and moral contexts. The powers enumerated to state governments in the tenth amendment were abused because state governments justified the enforcement of racial inequality using the tenth amendment. In the Supreme Court case New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court stated that the tenth amendment is “essentially a tautology” and “is not derived from its text.” Other historians believe that the tenth amendment serves a similar purpose to any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment reminds the federal government that federal powers cannot be inferred but have to be instead explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

One significant Supreme Court ruling to the tenth amendment was New York v. United States (1992). The federal government enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act in 1985 which required states to dispose of radioactive waste within their state’s borders. However, disappointed with these efforts, New York State filed suit against the federal government and argued that the federal government does not have the authority t o regulate state radioactive waste management. The decision was 6-3 for New York because the provision that state governments were forced into the service of the federal government was seen to violate the tenth amendment. This case illustrates the tenth amendment’s importance in making the division of powers between federal and state governments far more concrete and distinct. 

The first debated interpretation is far more persuasive because it signifies the usage of the tenth amendment only when it is convenient to the federal or state government’s case. The idea that state legislators can use the tenth amendment to justify pieces of legislation that promote racial inequality is extremely appalling. The Supreme Court arguing that the tenth amendment should be interpreted as a “tautology” allows for drastic misinterpretation of the law. It allows for the federal government to interpret and gain more power than is explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Eli Ross-Ninth & Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, ratified in the Bill of Rights, were designed to ensure individual states and citizens were granted the correct balance of rights desired by Congress at the time. For the representatives at the constitutional convention, the balance of power was of utmost importance. So, the Ninth Amendment makes clear that individuals have fundamental rights in addition to ones in the Constitution.

These fundamental rights include critical things like the right to travel, vote, and the right to keep matters private. One example of context as to why the Ninth Amendment was drafted is that when the Constitution was being written, Virginia representative and future president James Madison insisted this Amendment was crucial, as it clarified rights not included in the Constitution or Bill of Rights were still important. He believed if this was not mentioned it would suggest rights in the Constitution were “superior” to “non-enumerated” rights and this would violate individual liberty, a key American ideal. 

The Supreme Court justices have debated the specific meaning of the Ninth Amendment and the word “enumeration” on occasion, but generally agree that this Amendment calls for equal protection and equal value of non-enumerated and Constitutionally-enumerated rights for individuals.  The Tenth Amendment, also designed as a power-balancing law, says that rights not specifically given to the federal government or prohibited to the states, were reserved for the states. For example, the state of Kansas has the right to control its own education system but cannot wage war against a foreign country due to laws put in place protected by the Tenth Amendment.

This law was put in place because the drafters believed too much federal power would be similar to the old English monarchy which the colonists were rebelling against, but also recognized if the states had too much power they would be almost like foreign sovereign nations and potentially could split apart. The Amendment has been debated even at the time of its ratification.

For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Amendment wasn’t powerful enough to be featured in the Bill of Rights whereas James Madison believed it was of equal value to the other amendments and important to include since it would avoid Congress manipulating its powers, which would have created a too-strong federal government. More recently, court cases have focused on the Tenth Amendment’s conflict with the Elastic Clause (Article 1, Section 8), which gives Congress power to pass any law related to fulfilling their Federal duties. One important case where Amendment 10 was considered was Printz v. United States (1997), where two sheriffs challenged a bill that required background checks for prospective handgun owners.

The Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of Sheriff Printz, as the justices believed abolishing mandatory federal background checks would reaffirm the Amendment’s idea that state legislatures are not subject to Congressional direction.