Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:

He is listed in the approved by the U.S. Congress laws deed twelfth article ( "Article the twelfth ").

The First Amendment makes it clear that the power of the federal government is limited only to the rights that are also granted to her by the Constitution. In the court ruling United States vs. Sprague in 1931, the Supreme Court noted that the constitutional amendment changed nothing in the original Constitution. From time to time the government and Federal governments have sought an exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental control, to assert they viewed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as a basis for their request.

History and precedents

The jurisdiction clause

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is sometimes cited as a constitutional reason, refuses to Congress the right to pass any law that it considers to be legitimate. However, Congress has clarified its authority in the jurisdiction clause providing that he has the right to legislate in the field of human rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a certain action is tangent to the internal division of responsibilities in any way, the Congress has the right to regulate these actions.

Many extensions of government power during the 1930s were put down by the Supreme Court, until President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to increase the number of judges to 15 and to occupy the offices with like-minded judges. Although this attempt was unsuccessful, the Supreme Court changed its position from a paltry interpretation of the jurisdiction clause and broadened the powers of the Congress regarding domestic responsibilities.

In the Supreme Court case Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that national crop price controls must ensure that wheat, which is grown on a farm that had to be used for the supply of the owners and their animals. The reasoning was that the wheat that grows a farmer, constitutes compensation. If the farmer would not have grown the wheat, and even consumed, it would have been necessary to refer the wheat from someone else. It was also made ​​clear that it would affect the national market for wheat when it would allow farmers, their own wheat to sell.

In the court case vs Garcia. Announced San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority in 1985 the Supreme Court that he would cases that concern the 10th Amendment to the Constitution no longer negotiate. Because the political process ensures that laws that unduly burden states, may not be declared by Congress.

In the court case, United States vs.. Lopez was a law providing weapon-free zones around public schools stopped because it was not covered by the Constitution.

Provision of federal funds

A controversial procedure of the Congress was that he stopped the grant of federal funds for certain states, if these states do not lined up their laws to meet national requirements. Examples are the national speed limit of 55 mp / h (89 km / h) and the restriction to sell alcohol only at least 21 years old; the states have grants for the construction of highways lost if they had not adopted these laws.

Federal government resolutions 2009

In response to the budget of the Obama Administration with a deficit of over one trillion U.S. dollars, different states have adopted resolutions to oppose the dominance of the federal authorities at the state level. Thus far, eight states have already adopted, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Observers this trend expected that up to twenty other states could join me, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, California, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.