The basic reading would be, that unless the Constitution defines a power of the federal government, that power resides with the states and citizens. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, its addition was basically CYA, as it was and is true regardless of its enshrining within the Constitution. As such, its existence does not really mean anything beyond what the Constitution already meant. It just provides a handy shortcut to say, "the federal government should not have had the power to enforce this on the states."
This is actually a rather important principle, and most people don't realize how many federal laws that work at the state level use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks for enforcement. For instance, the penalty for not following the unpopular and eventually dismantled "No Child Left Behind Act" was that your state would not receive federal education funding.
> The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.
> federal laws ... use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks
There are limits to this, some of which are set out in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). These limits (quoting wikipedia) are:
* The spending must promote "the general welfare."
* The condition must be unambiguous.
* The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."
* The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
* The condition must not be coercive.
Especially the last condition is relevant. It means the withdrawal of funding cannot be so harsh as to be clearly funding. I believe the actual wording used is that the threat of withdrawal cannot be a 'gun to the head' of the states.
Not in the slightest, I recall hearing about this on the "What can trump teach us about con-law" (constitutional law).
I don't even live in america, but the system is interesting and rather well represented in the media. Few countries are as attached to their constitution as the US.
It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide.
What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example.
So the 10th says if it isn't mentioned it is a power that belongs to the people or the states. For example, weed isn't mentioned in the constitution so technically it's a 10th issue for states to decide - HOWEVER - this is thing called the commerce clause...
Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter. So it gets complicated. But... In the end, some states have legalized in the state in part referring to 10A, it's their right to do - but if you are in a "weed state" and light up at a DEA office - expect to be arrested and charged with a federal crime.
* The thing about commerce clause is that almost everything can move from state to state. So that's a little bit of an annoying topic depending on the issue and which side you're on. For example, I can manufacture a gun in my state that isn't legal in another state, commerce clause has been tried to limit 2A.
>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter
To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other readers might not), this has been taken by courts to mean that any type of good that is traded between states is fair game for federal involvement, even if the actual product in question never has and never will travel outside of the state, or be bought or sold whatsoever.
This isn't true...the interstate commerce clause may only regulate wholly intrastate commerce if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation. See Gonzalez v. Raich (permitting the criminalization of marijuana farming of marijuana that could only legally be sold in-state because marijuana as a good could be sold across state borders).
There aren't any cases governing wholly-intrastate physical goods no such goods exist, and generally when attempting to regulate otherwise purely local commerce (i.e., restaurants and civil rights), it is generally not a case of federal powers but rather of civil rights.
>if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation
Right, but the issue is that's so laughably wide that it's meaningless. Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.
No, it's not so laughably wise as to be meaningless. For example, the interstate commerce clause cannot regulate service transactions (healthcare, legal, accounting, etc.).
Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.
That's not how it works at all. But what do I know? I've only successfully practiced law for a decade in state and federal courts.
On what is this analysis based? No offense to the parent, but I've learned that analyses of law by non-attorneys, while they can be valuable in regard to principles, are about as accurate as an attorney's analysis of a software project.
>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.
What, exactly, this means has been a matter of ongoing debate for much of the amendment's existence. Some of the more fervent states' rights advocates have considered it a hard check on the power of the federal government, while at other times it has been considered little more than a truism.
My own personal read on it is that it defines the nature of state and federal lawmaking power, from the perspective of the constitution. Federal law is strict. The constitution allows it certain specific powers and subjects it is allowed to govern, and it must stay within those. State laws, from a federal perspective, are permissive. The constitution bars certain powers from the states, but anything not banned they are allowed to regulate.
In practice, this means less than it might, because the constitution's powers allow the federal government a lot of room to regulate and govern. At the state level, incorporation doctrine also limits their powers a fair bit.
In terms of judicial history, the 10th is one of the less significant parts of the Bill of Rights, becoming an issue in court far less than, say, the First Amendment (freedom of speech/press/religion) or Fourth (limits to search and seizure/ warrant requirements). On the other hand, it has come up more often than the Third (forced quartering of troops during times of peace).
