Welcome to another episode of the Tenth Amendment and today I am going to discuss the delegated powers and background of the Tenth Amendment. So I would be very happy if you read carefully to the end of this article because it will give you a clearer understanding of the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution that’s often misunderstood. To understand it, we need to go back in time and look at the history surrounding it. Kurt T. Lash wrote an article to help us understand what the Tenth Amendment really means. He dug deep into the past, looking at the documents and events that shaped the amendment. By doing so, he helps us grasp the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment and how it affects us today. A long time ago, the US had a document called the Articles of Confederation. This document was like a precursor to the Constitution. It said that any powers not given to the federal government belonged to the states. Think of it like a pie chart, where the federal government gets a slice, and the states get the rest. James Madison, one of the founding fathers, thought that adding the word “expressly” to the Constitution would limit the government’s power too much. He was worried that it would tie the government’s hands, making it hard for them to do their job. So, he promised that a bill of rights would fix the issue. This bill of rights would ensure that the government didn’t overstep its bounds.
Scholars often think that the Tenth Amendment means that the government only has the powers listed in the Constitution (a strict interpretation) or that the government has broad powers beyond what’s listed (a loose interpretation). But Lash says there’s a third option, which is a “narrow construction” of powers. This means the government only has the powers listed but with some flexibility. Think of it like a recipe book, the government has a list of ingredients (powers) it can use, but it also has some wiggle room to add its own spices (interpretation). After the constitution was ratified, states suggested changes, including adding language from the Articles of Confederation. Federalists promised a narrow interpretation of powers and states wanted it in writings, James Madison and Thomas Tucker disagreed on adding the word “expressly” to the Tenth Amendment. Madison thought it would be too limiting, while Tucker thought it would provide clarity. Most people understood that the government’s powers should be interpreted narrowly, even without the word “expressly”. This means the government only has the powers listed with some flexibility, think of it like a traffic light. The government has a green light to do certain things, but it also has to follow the rules of the road (the constitution).
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments work together to limit the federal government’s power. The Ninth Amendment says the government can’t deny rights not listed in the Constitution, think of it like a safety net. The government can’t take away the rights that aren’t explicitly listed, while the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states or people. Think of it as a backup plan if the federal government doesn’t have the power, the states or people do.
So in conclusion Lash’s article helps us understand the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment. He connects it to federalism (the relationship between the federal government and states), narrow construction (interpreting powers narrowly), and the Ninth Amendment (protecting unlisted rights). By understanding the history and context, we can see how the Tenth Amendment affects us today. It’s like putting together a puzzle, so in essence Lash’s article helps us see the bigger picture.
Archival article: original document last modified 2024-09-04. This essay discusses a scholarly interpretation of constitutional history, not a statement of current legal advice.
Referenced scholarship: Kurt T. Lash, The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty, and Expressly Delegated Power (2008).
Leave a Reply