The 10th Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it This

This dispute concerns 2 interrelated issues of constitutional

policy -
to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
1 - how imporant is the protection of state sovereignty &
federalism?
Two competing readings of the 10th amendment - 2 - should it be the role of the judiciary to protect state
prerogatives, or should this be left to the political process?
- 10th as a simple reminder Congress can only
legislate within Constitutional authority - laws are not
- 10th as important limit on Congressional power
unconstitutional for violating the 10th; laws Federalism benefits - decreasing likelihood of federal
that protects state sovereignty from federal
constitutional so long as they are within scope of power tyranny, division of power reduces it, state/local govts -
intrusion & reserved a zone of activity to the
granted by the Constitution - 10th not a basis for political process insufficient to protect state sovereignty
states for their exclusive control, federal laws
invalidating federal law. - Enhances democratic rule by providing govt close to people
intruding on the zone are unconstitutional.
-Federal laws could be unconstitutional for violating - Allows states to be laboratories for new ideas
another Constitutional provision.
10th as reserving zone of Bailey v. Drexel - Reiteration of doctrine of enumerated powers not
activities to states for Furniture - Congress individual limit of Congressional authority.
exclusive control - Hammer attempting to control
specifically control over production & intrduce Two Direct Methods of Regulation of States -
production like manufacturing into zone Ct saw Darby - 10th but a truism Laws of General Application [Garcia] - To make states
Gibbons - so long as
was for states - Child Labor reserved to states that all is retained which has susceptible to same regulation as private parties. OK.
congress acted within
Case - regulating hours of labor Butler - impermissibly not been surrendered. Commandeering of state officials - forcing states to
scope of CC, law
of children entrusted purely to controlled production, -Law constitutional so long implement federal policy; this is not OK.
wouldn't be
state authority, state police area left to states by as within scope of
unconstitutional as
power 10th Constitutional power.
violating state
Expressly overtturned
sovereignty. CC no
National League - ct declared unconstitutional Hammer; made clear 10th Political accountability - voters don't know where to point
limitations other than
application of fair labor standards act requiring state & wouldn't be based for finger during political process if state official does something
prescribed in
local employees be paid min wage invalidating federal laws. the federal govt has forced them to do rather than something
Constitution.
- "there are limits upon power of Congress to override the state has decided to do; federalism is to protect
state sovereignty even when exercising otherwise individual liberty; to do so; fed govt needs to be politically
plenary powers to regulate commerce." violated 10th bc Garcia - overruled NLC; responsible
"operated to directly displace states freedom to structure -NLC approach unworkable -
integral operations in areas of traditional govt functions." "traditional" or "integral" - any rule of
state immunity looking to traditional
NY v. U.S. [all states must clean up waste or Printz v. U.S. nature of govt functions invites
take title & be liable for any harm waste [state/local LEO unelected fed judiciary to make
caused] - Unconstitutional - take title gave must conduct decisions about what state policies it
state govts choice bt accepting ownership of background checks favors & what it doesn't
waste or regulating according to before issuing -protection of state prorgatives should
Congressional instructions firearms] - be thru political process not from
Congress was commandeering states, Unconstitutional, judiciary.
conscripting the states, forcing them to Congress was
enact a law or regulation, violating the 10th - commandeering
cannot compel states to enact or administer states - cannot Garcia v. NY/Printz -
a federal regulatory program, would compel state · Garcia seems to apply mainly to
undermine govt accountability bc congress executive officials to generally applicable federal
could make a decision, but states would administer a federal lawmaking -when Congress passes a
take political heat & be held responsible for mandate, cannot generally applicable law, 10th doesn?t
a decision not theirs compel state entitle state?s own operations to
*Majority explictly rejected argument that officers to act, exemption merely because it is a
compelling govt interest sufficient to permit a violates 10th state being regulated along with all
law that otherwise would violate the 10th amendment. other private entities.
-Central Holding - unconstitutional to compel -Also SoP violation - -Where federal tries to force state or
state leg to adopt laws or state agencies to Congress local govt to enact legislation or
adopt regulations; but Congress could set impermissible gave regulation or tries to force state or
standards state/local govts must meet, executive authority local officials to perform particular
preempt state & local actions; may attach to implment law to govt functions- not part of generally
strings on grants to state & local govts to state/local LEOs applicable scheme & instead directed
induce specifically at states?basic exercise
of sovereignty- right to carry out
business of govt- federal government
HOWEVER - Congress can try to induce state/local may not use such coercion
govts to act by conditioning grants of money so long
as they are clearly stated, related to the purpose or
program, & are not unduly coercive
-NY & Printz 0 affirmative mandates, not restrictions
on conduct