tenth

Aniya S. – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Common Interpretation:

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that powers not given to the national government are granted to the states and general public. It highlights the limited and enumerated powers of the national government, while reminding of the essential role that the states and people play in the constitutional republic. The Tenth Amendment illustrates the relationship between the federal and state governments by demarcating their respective authorities. The main purpose of incorporating the Tenth Amendment into the Bill of Rights was to warn the national government about inferring or assuming powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Historical Context:

The Tenth Amendment was also made due to the lack of restrictions on national government exercising unauthorized powers over the citizens and states in the original Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution found it pointless to include a Bill of Rights for an already limited government, and even found the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to be potentially dangerous. They believed a Bill of Rights would be useless and that its vagueness would leave room for misinterpretations of certain rights. Despite the concerns, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment showed that it did not change the nature of national government. Legal scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to clarify the limits of national government to the American citizens (at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). 

Matters of Debate:

One interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is that it adds nothing substantial to the Constitution, as it simply defines the concept of “federalism”. The Tenth Amendment is simply a truism. Similarly, one matter of debate is whether the Tenth Amendment should serve as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism. Another interpretation holds that the Tenth Amendment restores a degree of balancing the powers of federal and state governments, as the enumerated powers of national government are often misunderstood. In this way, the Tenth Amendment acts as a backdrop to the governing structures outlined in the Constitution, giving some legal scholars reason to say it has “constitutional value”. The Supreme Court case, Bond v. The United States illustrates the latter interpretation, as the Court unanimously agreed that Bond should not be charged under a federal statute that violates the powers reserved to the states (Pennsylvania). It was agreed that the federal statute was beyond the enumerated powers of the national government, and therefore a constitutionally invalid law. Bond had every right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute. 

Significance:

The Tenth Amendment bears some similarities to the themes of Rousseau’s Social Contract, which asserts a relationship between individual liberty and the liberty of the government. In the “social contract”, the government maintains political authority, but must respect the people. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment holds that the national government has its designated powers, but so do the states and people. That said, I find the second interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to be most persuasive because the Amendment defines the balance of powers between the national government and states. I believe the Tenth Amendment has no reason to be further amended when it fulfills its purpose of outlining federalism in the constitutional republic. In other words, it serves its purpose well

Jared Davis – The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Video

Written Component

The Ninth Amendment, written and framed by James Madison, is one of the most debated and ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. It states that certain rights in the Constitution do not mean that other rights do not exist. The main point of conflict revolves around identifying these additional rights. One shared interpretation is that these rights refer to the natural rights inherent from birth, as the Constitution only specifies some rights in great detail. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the amendment was crafted. During the debates between antifederalists and federalists on including a bill of rights, James Madison argued that listing specific rights would leave the government to argue that only the enumerated rights are protected. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment seeks to balance and protect both enumerated and retained rights, subject to interpretation. While the amendment has not been frequently used in cases, it has found use in both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In these cases, the court used the ninth to recognize privacy rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but considered pre-existing rights deserving protection. These examples help reinforce the amendment’s significance in countering the criticism of vague language, although the lack of explicit mention of these rights leaves room for further interpretation. The Ninth Amendment remains the most complex amendment within the Constitution, prompting us to question what new rights today may exist that should have been included in the original document.

 

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is historically and interpretively significant. It addresses concerns over individual rights, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Its inclusion aimed to prevent an excessive concentration of power in the federal government and respond to the demands of the states and their citizens. Commonly understood, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states’ rights and authority, ensuring a balanced power distribution between the federal government and the states. However, interpretations have diverged over time. Some argue it grants states broad powers to resist federal encroachment, while others believe it has limitations and does not grant absolute state sovereignty. The Supreme Court case of New York v. United States (1992) illustrates the debate over the Tenth Amendment. The ruling favored New York, reaffirming state sovereignty and reviving the amendment’s significance. It emphasized the amendment’s role in maintaining a balanced power distribution and protecting states from excessive federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment connects to federalism, balancing individual rights, government authority, and shared power. Its preservation of state sovereignty and protection of rights make it significant. The interpretation that grants states broad powers is more persuasive. It aligns with federalism and the amendment’s intent, preserving state autonomy and authority. Given its historical context and ongoing relevance, I would not advocate amending the Tenth Amendment. It safeguards state sovereignty and individual rights, and altering it could disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states, undermining the principles of federalism.

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.

Zohar Lindemann- The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Once the American colonists won the revolutionary war and gained their independence, the nation struggled to find a balance between the practical demands of running a large country and the ideals of freedom and individualism that they had so recently fought for. Many of the Constitution’s framers were afraid of creating yet another absolutist rule, feeling that offering too much power to a central government would leave the wants and needs of the common people forgotten. Other framers felt that the lack of a strong central government would result in political chaos. Many elements of the Constitution, which is largely considered a federalist document, are written with precaution to the fear that a central government would have the ability to completely overrule other political powers. For this reason, the framers deemed unnecessary the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, although numerous state constitutions had them at the time. To those drafting the Constitution, simply entertaining the idea that the federal government would have the ability to overrule the natural rights of the people was considered dangerous. The 10th Amendment ensures that there are thorough limitations on the federal government’s power and that the rights of the State and of the individual are properly protected, with federal power extending only as far as the Constitution dictates it is able to. 

After the 1933 installment of the New Deal, a federal effort to stabilize the economy, the 10th Amendment became somewhat obsolete. However, in 1992, it regained its relevance as a consequence of the “New Federalism” movement. Rober Schapiro asserts that for the benefit of the U.S. “politically, socially, and morally,” the 10th amendment should have remained neglected. In various instances, but most prominently throughout the Civil Rights Movement, the amendment has given states the ability to enforce racial inequality laws that contradict directly the rights outlined in other sections of the Constitution. Schapiro argues that in today’s world, federal and state powers are so intertwined that the amendment’s only purpose is to provide legal loopholes for states whose intentions dispute the core values outlined in the Constitution, providing a necessary “backstop” for everything not mentioned. 

The debate around the interpretation of this text is illustrated in the Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) case. Within the case, SAMTA claims that being an institution controlled by a state government, they are exempt from federal labor controls such as minimum wage and overtime requirements. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Garica, arguing that the “traditional” function of a state government was subjective and that the structure of the federal system itself provided sovereign protection enough. Under the commerce clause, SAMTA was deemed subject to congressional legislation. This case serves as a demonstration of the ongoing debate over the role of a central government within the U.S.

Both the French and American revolutions can be considered as a test of the function that Enlightenment values serve within practical governments. With the French government often considered a failure, and the clear difficulties that the 10th amendment illustrates between federal and state power, the 10th amendment raises questions about the ability of radical Enlightenment ideas, such as Montesquieu’s strong belief in the separation of powers, to function smoothly.

Aniya S. – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Common Interpretation:

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that powers not given to the national government are granted to the states and general public. It highlights the limited and enumerated powers of the national government, while reminding of the essential role that the states and people play in the constitutional republic. The Tenth Amendment illustrates the relationship between the federal and state governments by demarcating their respective authorities. The main purpose of incorporating the Tenth Amendment into the Bill of Rights was to warn the national government about inferring or assuming powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 

Historical Context:

The Tenth Amendment was also made due to the lack of restrictions on national government exercising unauthorized powers over the citizens and states in the original Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution found it pointless to include a Bill of Rights for an already limited government, and even found the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to be potentially dangerous. They believed a Bill of Rights would be useless and that its vagueness would leave room for misinterpretations of certain rights. Despite the concerns, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment showed that it did not change the nature of national government. Legal scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to clarify the limits of national government to the American citizens (at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). 

Matters of Debate:

One interpretation of the Tenth Amendment is that it adds nothing substantial to the Constitution, as it simply defines the concept of “federalism”. The Tenth Amendment is simply a truism. Similarly, one matter of debate is whether the Tenth Amendment should serve as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism. Another interpretation holds that the Tenth Amendment restores a degree of balancing the powers of federal and state governments, as the enumerated powers of national government are often misunderstood. In this way, the Tenth Amendment acts as a backdrop to the governing structures outlined in the Constitution, giving some legal scholars reason to say it has “constitutional value”. The Supreme Court case, Bond v. The United States illustrates the latter interpretation, as the Court unanimously agreed that Bond should not be charged under a federal statute that violates the powers reserved to the states (Pennsylvania). It was agreed that the federal statute was beyond the enumerated powers of the national government, and therefore a constitutionally invalid law. Bond had every right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute. 

Significance:

The Tenth Amendment bears some similarities to the themes of Rousseau’s Social Contract, which asserts a relationship between individual liberty and the liberty of the government. In the “social contract”, the government maintains political authority, but must respect the people. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment holds that the national government has its designated powers, but so do the states and people. That said, I find the second interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to be most persuasive because the Amendment defines the balance of powers between the national government and states. I believe the Tenth Amendment has no reason to be further amended when it fulfills its purpose of outlining federalism in the constitutional republic. In other words, it serves its purpose well

Aaron – The Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Tenth Amendment establishes the boundaries for the power relationship between the states and the federal government. It was added to the Constitution as a mechanism for keeping the federal government in check by allotting most of the power to enact laws in the hands of each state, a system known as federalism. Today, federalism allows diverse political, cultural, and ideological views to be expressed differently based on the preference of the voters in each state. This system also has its downsides, even when most Americans agree on certain issues, the federal government has no way of enforcing these ideas onto states with opposing views.

Due to the tensions between the state and the federal government, this amendment has been the focus of numerous court cases that have more clearly defined the relationship between the state and federal government. For instance, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was a precedent that showed that the federal government has more power than once thought inside states. The case concerned a Kansas farmer who had produced a surplus of wheat. His wheat was ruled to be a subject of the commerce clause. The court’s decision for this was based on the fact that his surplus was able to influence the price of wheat elsewhere and therefore needed to be regulated under the clause. This clause was originally meant for the federal government to be a mediator in inter-state commerce but resulted in the federal government claiming that every transaction of commerce-related issues could be regulated by them. This interpretation of the Tenth Amendment vastly expanded the boundaries in which the federal government had power as they now were able to regulate almost all commerce.

Recently, judges have started to revert to a more limited central government. The overturning of Roe v. Wade (2022) set a precedent that state and local governments decide all public health issues. Additionally, another very important case with modern applications is Printz v. United States (1997). In this case, the supreme court used the Constitution’s “anti-commandeering” clauses to rule in favor of states’ rights to not enforce federal laws. 

The majority of the time the Tenth Amendment protects people from a super-powerful central government. On the flip side, however, it has also allowed many states to continue to promote things such as racial inequality. During this time the federal government sometimes couldn’t implement laws promoting racial equality in states even when the majority of Americans were in favor of racial equality. This is because the power to regulate these types of laws was given to the state by the Tenth Amendment.

To summarize, the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has varied dramatically, but it has always set the boundaries between the state and federal governments. Although the Tenth Amendment has not always been used to do good things, it continues to protect people from an all-powerful government and it allows for the diverse views of the people in different states to be expressed.