Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - wikipedia Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America Preamble and Articles of the Constitution Preamble II III IV V VI VII Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights History Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism Full text of the Constitution and Amendments Preamble and Articles I -- VII Amendments I -- X Amendments XI -- XXVII Unratified Amendments United States portal U.S. Government portal Law portal Wikipedia book The Tenth Amendment ( Amendment X ) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states ' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. The amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789 during its first term following the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite of such ratification particularly to satisfy demands by the Anti-Federalism movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind : first, as a necessary rule of construction ; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of federalism. Contents 1 Text 2 Drafting and adoption 3 Judicial interpretation 3.1 Forced participation or commandeering 3.2 Commerce clause 3.3 Supremacy Clause 3.4 Federal funding 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Text The full text of the amendment reads as follows : 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 Bill of Rights in the National Archives The hand - written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to just show the text that would later be ratified as the Tenth Amendment Drafting and adoption The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of 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. '' After the Constitution was ratified, South Carolina Representative Thomas Tudor Tucker and Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry separately proposed similar amendments limiting the federal government to powers `` expressly '' delegated, which would have denied implied powers. James Madison opposed the amendments, stating that `` it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers ; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. '' When a vote on this version of the amendment with `` expressly delegated '' was defeated, Connecticut Representative Roger Sherman drafted the Tenth Amendment in its ratified form, omitting `` expressly. '' Sherman 's language allowed for an expansive reading of the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary : I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary : but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication. The phrase ``..., or to the people. '' was appended in handwriting by the clerk of the Senate as the Bill of Rights circulated between the two Houses of Congress. Judicial interpretation The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague ( 1931 ) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment `` added nothing to the ( Constitution ) as originally ratified. '' States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often - repeated quote, from United States v. Darby Lumber Co., reads as follows : The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. Forced participation or commandeering The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low - Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low - level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6 -- 3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power ( e.g. by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole, or through the commerce power ( by directly pre-empting state law ). However, Congress can not directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1998, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. United States. The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act `` forced participation of the State 's executive in the actual administration of a federal program '', it was unconstitutional. In 2012, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, held that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( commonly referred to as the ACA or Obamacare ) improperly coerced the States to expand Medicaid. He classified the ACA 's language as coercive because it effectively forced States to join the federal program by conditioning the continued provision of Medicaid funds on States agreeing to materially alter Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals who fell below 133 % of the poverty line. In 2018, in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibited states from legalizing sports betting, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and invalided the entire law. Commerce Clause In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently - used sources of Congress 's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government. In the 20th century, complex economic challenges arising from 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. In Wickard v. Filburn ( 1942 ), in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for `` home consumption '' on a farm -- that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer 's growing `` his own wheat '' can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat. In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority ( 1985 ), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was `` traditional '' for or `` integral '' to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was `` unsound in principle and unworkable in practice '', and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court 's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held ``... we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum - wage requirements of the FLSA... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision. '' It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be `` destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision. '' In United States v. Lopez, a federal law mandating a `` gun - free zone '' on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government 's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court 's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject. Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical cannabis crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical cannabis was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215 ; however, cannabis is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one 's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly was n't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen ( the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision ). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Supremacy Clause Cooper v. Aaron, a 1958 Supreme Court case that dealt with states ' rights and the Tenth Amendment, came about when conflicts arose in direct response to the ruling of another landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously decided on Brown v. Board of Education declaring racial segregation of children in public schools unconstitutional. Following the decision, the court ordered `` district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation ' with all deliberate speed ' ''. In other words, the Court 's decision not only ruled segregation as an unconstitutional and illegal practice, but also prompted all public schools to open its doors to black students and provide access to facilities to white and black students equally. This ruling quickly spurred upsetting conflicts between those trying to enforce the ruling and those refusing to abide by it. Among those opposing the decision and all efforts of desegregation ordered by the Court was the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a group of nine black students known as the `` Little Rock Nine '' was to attend the previously all - white Central High School under the school board 's attempt to follow the order of Brown. However, the tension between the state legislature and the Governor versus the Supreme Court and the federal government became severe when Governor Faubus ordered the National Guard to prevent the nine black students from entering the high school and President Eisenhower responded by sending federal troops to escort them in. Because the Little Rock school board implementing the desegregation program fell under both the state and federal jurisdiction, it sought to alleviate itself from this distraught situation through legal means. Five months after the integration crisis happened, the school board filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas requesting a two and a half year delay in implementing desegregation. Although the district court granted the relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court 's decision on August 18, 1958 and stayed its mandate pending appeal to the supreme Court. By this time, the incident had evolved into a national issue : it had become a debate on not only racism and segregation but also states ' rights and the Tenth Amendment. The Court, citing first, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI declaring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and second, the Marbury v. Madison decision asserting the Court as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution as evidence of their superior authority, reaffirmed the decision of Brown and held that the states must abide by the Court 's decisions despite their disagreement with them. Expectedly, many states ' right advocates and state officials criticized the ruling as an attack on the Tenth Amendment that reserves the states ' right to resist the implementation of federal law or the Federal Constitution. Moreover, they claimed the Court 's decision on Cooper as being inconsistent with the constitutional vision of the Framers. Though the historical and political background to the rise of Cooper v. Aaron was the issue of segregation, the outcome of it was largely a Tenth Amendment issue. Whether the supremacy clause that the Supreme Court used to enforce its authority on the states is a violation of the Tenth Amendment or not is still being debated. Federal funding The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States. However, where Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programs, or otherwise regulate, there are, arguably, certain incentives in the national government encouraging States to become the instruments of such national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One incentive is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another incentive is that implementation of federal programs at the state level would in principle limit the growth of the national bureaucracy. For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards ; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph ( 90 km / h ) speed limit,. 08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21 - year drinking age were imposed through this method ; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws ( though the national speed limit has since been repealed ). See also State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States States ' rights Tenther movement References Jump up ^ `` The Bill of Rights : A Transcription ''. United States National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 20 September 2010. Jump up ^ National Archives. `` Bill of Rights ''. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Jump up ^ Cooper, Charles. `` Essay on the Tenth Amendment : Reserved Powers of the States ''. Retrieved September 11, 2014. Jump up ^ Justice Robert F. Utter ( 2010 - 07 - 18 ). `` '' Freedom and Diversity in a Federal System : Perspectives on State Constitutions and the Washington Declaration of Rights '' by Justice Robert F. Utter ``. Digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu. Retrieved 2015 - 10 - 29. Jump up ^ United States Government Printing Office. `` Tenth Amendment -- Reserved Powers -- Contents '' ( PDF ). GPO.gov. Jump up ^ `` Articles of Confederation from Yale University ''. Yale Law School Avalon Project. Retrieved 2008 - 12 - 16. ^ Jump up to : `` House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution ''. University of Chicago. Retrieved 2007 - 12 - 16. ^ Jump up to : Bordewich, Fergus M. ( 2016 ). The First Congress : How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. New York City, NY : Simon and Schuster. p. 130. ISBN 978 - 1451691931. Jump up ^ Epps, Garrett. `` Constitutional Myth # 7 : The 10th Amendment Protects ' States ' Rights ' ''. The Atlantic. Retrieved 2013 - 06 - 26. Jump up ^ `` Bill of Rights Documents : Document 11 : House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution ''. The Founders ' Constitution. University of Chicago. 8 June ; 21 July ; 13, 18 -- 19 August 1789. Retrieved 19 June 2015. Jump up ^ Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F. 2d 532, 537 ( 6th Cir. 1991 ) : `` The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time... '' Jump up ^ Calabresi, Steven ; Prakash, Saikrishna ( 1994 ). `` The President 's Power to Execute the Laws ''. Yale Law Journal. 104. The message of the Tenth Amendment is that expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to lists of governmental powers. Jump up ^ Rollins, Henry Lawrence. `` Henry Speaks On His Consciousness - Expanding Trip to the Library of Congress With Ian MacKaye ''. Retrieved 2011 - 11 - 16. Jump up ^ Draft of Bill of Rights, September 9, 1789, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, The Center for Legislative Archives, Senate Revisions to House - passed Amendments to the Constitution Jump up ^ United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 - 34 ( 1931 ). Jump up ^ United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100, 124 ( 1941 ). Jump up ^ New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 ( 1992 ). ^ Jump up to : South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 ( 1987 ). ^ Jump up to : Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 ( 1997 ). Jump up ^ National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 ( 2012 ). Jump up ^ `` Opinion analysis : Justices strike down federal sports gambling law ( Updated ) - SCOTUSblog ''. SCOTUSblog. 2018 - 05 - 14. Retrieved 2018 - 05 - 15. Jump up ^ Epstein, Richard A. ( 2014 ). The Classical Liberal Constitution. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978 - 0 - 674 - 72489 - 1. Jump up ^ Epstein, Richard A. ( 2014 ). The Classical Liberal Constitution. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978 - 0 - 674 - 72489 - 1. Jump up ^ Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ( 1942 ). Jump up ^ Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 ( 1985 ). Jump up ^ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 ( 1995 ). Jump up ^ Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 ( 2005 ). ^ Jump up to : `` Brown v. Board of Education ''. History. Retrieved May 25, 2018. Jump up ^ `` Little Rock Nine ''. History. Retrieved May 25, 2018. ^ Jump up to : Farber, Daniel ( 1982 ). `` The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law : Cooper v. Aaron Revisited ''. University of Illinois Law Review. 1982 : 387 -- 412 -- via HeinOnline. ^ Jump up to : Bhagwat, Ashutosh ( 2008 ). `` Cooper v. Aaron and the Faces of Federalism ''. Saint Louis University Law Journal. 52 : 1087 -- 1113 -- via HeinOnline. External links CRS Annotated Constitution : Tenth Amendment, Cornell 's Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment Center -- works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. Lindner, Doug. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts -- explores some of the issues and controversies that surround the US Constitution United States Constitution Articles Preamble II III IV V VI VII Amendments Ratified Bill of Rights 5 6 7 8 9 10 Others 11 12 Reconstruction Amendments 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pending Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Amendment Child Labor Repealed Eighteenth Amendment Unsuccessful Equal Rights District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment proposals in Congress Convention to propose amendments State ratifying conventions Formation History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three - Fifths Compromise Committee of Detail Signing Independence Hall Syng inkstand The Federalist Papers Anti-Federalist Papers Massachusetts Compromise Virginia Ratifying Convention Hillsborough Convention Rhode Island ratification Drafting and ratification timeline Clauses Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Bills of credit Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Congressional enforcement Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Free Speech Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Import - Export Ineligibility Militia Natural - born citizen Necessary and Proper New States No Religious Test Oath or Affirmation Origination Petition Postal Presentment Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Recess appointment Recommendation Self - Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial State of the Union Supremacy Suspension Take Care Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers List of clauses Interpretation Concurrent powers Constitutional law Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Equal footing Executive privilege Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Preemption Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Taxation power Unitary executive theory Display and legacy National Archives Charters of Freedom Rotunda Independence Mall Constitution Day Constitution Gardens National Constitution Center Scene at the Signing of the Constitution ( painting ) A More Perfect Union ( film ) Worldwide influence US Government Portal Law Portal Wikipedia book GND : 4737121 - 3 LCCN : n97009335 VIAF : 181958530 Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=843452341 '' Categories : 1791 in American law Amendments to the United States Constitution Federalism in the United States 1791 in American politics States ' rights Hidden categories : All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from November 2013 Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers Talk Contents About Wikipedia Ænglisc Беларуская Català Deutsch Español فارسی Français 한국어 עברית Polski Русский Simple English Українська 中文 5 more Edit links This page was last edited on 29 May 2018, at 07 : 38. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what permitted federalism as originally defined by the constitution to change
Answer: Tenth Amendment