10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause

10th Amendment or the Supremacy Clause should be stricken down, it is important to define what each is. The 10th amendment is "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" (Mcpherson, 2009, p. 254). The Supremacy Clause is "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" (Dixon, Mccorquodale, Williams, & Mccorquodale, 2011, p. 127). In addition, the Judges within each State must be bound thus, any Thing in the Laws/Constitution of any State to the opposing all the same. When seeing how these two laws work not in conflict of each other, but together, it can be hard to choose which one to strike down. This is because through these laws, the Constitution lists powers the United States federal government has. With regards to the Tenth Amendment, anything not on the list would be considered a state power. In terms of federal laws, they represent the ultimate Law within the country but only when the laws are valid. A federal law is valid when it is within the power allotted by the Constitution to the federal government. Therefore, no conflict arises with states and state power over all else.

However, if a choice had to be made, the Tenth Amendment would be stricken simply to protect the Supreme Law of the land, being the federal government. The federal government is what holds all the states together. Going back to the American Civil War, the federal government was the force behind maintaining order among the feuding states. If states have no one above them to control their actions, they can leave the United States and become their own countries. The federal government exists as a centralizing entity that provides the order from which American society can flourish. Should the Supremacy Clause cease to exist, instead of fifty states, there would be fifty nations all with their own system of rule.

Although state power is important, I would have to choose to strike the 10th Amendment because while state power promotes order within each state, it is not as necessary as the power that the federal government holds. A country can exist without states having power or people. It would not be an ideal situation, but it would also not lead to chaos as quickly as having no central form of government. It would be like a house having walls but no support beams. The federal government acts as the support beams that reinforce the support brought on by the four walls. The power of the people and the state cannot genuinely exist and be enforced as effectively without the federal government.

Furthermore, should the Supremacy Clause be eradicated, Congress itself would have no power, and become instead, a helpless body. The states would war against each other and there would be no national defense, no credit or commerce. At best there would be local trade, but no international trade, or diplomacy. The country needs to remain one large body in order to have the power it has now. The only way to achieve that is to have a central power, the federal government. Ultimately, the country is too big with too many states and diverse citizens to dissipate a central form of government. That is what the result would be if the Supremacy Clause were to be stricken down.

References

Dixon, M., Mccorquodale, R., Williams, S., & Mccorquodale, R. (2011). Cases and materials on international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McPherson, E. (2009). The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction (p. 254). Applewood Books.