United States Constitution -- 10th

United States Constitution -- 10th Amendment -- "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." The 10th Amendment is essentially a restatement of the Constitutional principle of federalism by providing specific wording that power not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the state or the people.

The 10th Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, and was similar to an earlier provision in the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled" (Avalon Yale, n.d.). After the Constitution was ratified, some members of Congress wanted to add a similar codicil limiting the federal government's powers, and to insure that there were no implied powers.

The 10th Amendment thus, makes certain the idea that the Federal Government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, and even though some states and local government have attempted to become exempt from various Federal regulations (especially in the area of environmental and labor law), and use the 10th Amendment as their claim, the Supreme Court holds the original ratification to be true (Smith, 2007).

Component Interpretation - When the 10th Amendment was ratified, economies were not global, and the trade and commercial base of the new country was dramatically different than it is today. According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these).

The Commerce Clause is one of the Article 1 Section 8 powers specifically delegated to Congress and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power. In the twentieth century, complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy. President Franklin Roosevelt's "alphabet programs," as well as the new structure of banking and regulation resulted in changes to both Federal and state expectations.

There were actually four cases that came before the Supreme Court since 1940 that have tested the 10th Amendment and its interpretation: Wickard v Filburn (1942) - Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized.

He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. The question in the matter was: Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature? The Court Concluded: According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character.

The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect" (Oyez Project, 3317 U.S. 1942). This decision allowed the Federal system to have regulatory ability over home grown product, because it affected more than just the single family farm.

Garcia v San Antonio Transit (1985)- The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), the main provider of transportation in the San Antonio metropolitan area, claimed it was exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. SAMTA argued that it was providing a "traditional" governmental function, which exempted it from federal.