The Tenth Amendment and the Joy of Federalism
Guest Commentary from VirginiaConservative
(or I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts).
Ask someone what is the most important amendment to the constitution. If he were a liberal, he would likely answer “the right to free speech”, the 1st. If he were a conservative, he would likely answer “the right to keep and bear arms”, the 2nd.
Although all amendments are important (or at least those found in the Bill of Rights), I have another suggestion. For those who fear the encroachment of an ever-expanding national government, might I recommend the 10th?
Now I know that no one really talks about the tenth anymore, but here it is:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Any questions? I shouldn’t really think so. It is simple and straightforward.
But the problem lies in the fact that few these days tend to uphold the amendment. For example, as written in one of my articles below, consider the Department of Education created in 1979.
Now don’t get me wrong, education is important, but the federal government has absolutely no authority when it comes to education as stated by the United States Constitution. Now if I’m in error, let me know. Prove it to me. If it can be done clearly and without a lot of “promote the general welfare” jargon then I will gladly retract this statement.
How about the arts? I’m sure you know that we have a National Endowment for the Arts. Is it constitutional? Promoting the arts is constitutional, but how so? In Article One, Section 8, it is written as pertaining to the powers of Congress, “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
That is the constitutional limits of the promotion of the arts. According to the NEA website found at http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html, they write, “The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.
Established by Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government, the Endowment is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts, bringing great art to all 50 states, including rural areas, inner cities, and military bases.” Well, isn’t that nice…art to one and all?
Agree or disagree with the ideals NEA, which need I remind you has brought us such national treasures as the “Piss Christ” and “The Perfect Moment”, but the simple fact remains that the agency is horribly unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Are there more departments, agencies, and laws out there that exceed the authority of the federal government out there? I would wager that one could fill a textbook with examples. If you care to add your own to this article, feel free to comment.
Ah, but let us now get to the second part, “The Joy of Federalism or I Don’t Care How They Do Things in Massachusetts.” Federalism, of course, is the principle of states giving up some portion of their authority to a greater or larger government to achieve specific aims, such as a common defense, creating patents, declaring war, raising armies and so forth.
For all of the specific powers granted to the federal government by the states, I direct you to the Constitution. Although the federal government does not have any power to fund, promote, or mettle in education or the arts, states and, of course, citizens do.
Assuming that it is allowable under their state constitutions and laws, any state can and ought to be involved in these areas should the citizens of the respective states so desire. Say that the commonwealth of Massachusetts (I select Massachusetts here because I believe many of their traditions, laws, and beliefs are antithetical to our Virginia) wants to offer free education to all of its citizens from grade school to post-graduate.
Believe it or not, I say, let them.
Will the tax burden of the average citizen skyrocket dramatically? Without a doubt. But that is the true joy of federalism. What Massachusetts citizens want, as long as they obey the Constitution and their own laws, they should get.
Another example is mandatory health insurance. In 2006 the state became the first to require health insurance of its citizens (passed by wacky Gov. “Massachusetts Mitt”). Is it a horrid idea? Certainly. But they have that right to be the “laboratory of Democracy” a phrase used by Robert La Follette. When other states see Massachusetts’ successes (or, in this case, failures) they will likely either adopt or reject their policies accordingly.
We apply the same principle to other countries, so why not other states. Now there are caveats to this principle, of course. If a state seeks to injure, undermine, or destroy, a citizen or another state, or the laws of that state, then certainly the federal government has a constitutional requirement to defend the injured party and ideally preventing the offense in the first place.
But let us turn back to liberal Massachusetts. As stated, with a handful of exceptions, I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts. If they succeed, business and citizens will attempt to flock there, but if they fail the opposite will happen.
Heck, I’ll take that idea one further.
I don’t care how they do things in France, or Singapore, or Saudi Arabia. As we respect the ability of others to govern themselves, so too should they honor our right. Although many willingly choose to flounder under statism, we must jealously guard our own backyard.
If they, or anyone else, attempt to bring their socialist ideas to Virginia or our national government, we should fight them tooth and nail to defend our state, our country, our values, our culture, and our way of life. If I wanted to live in a state like Massachusetts, I would move to Massachusetts. Thanks, but you don’t have to bring it to me.
So what is the take home message from this tirade? Slowly but surely the powers of the federal government have grown at the expense of the states and of ourselves, the citizens. Whose fault is it?
Without a doubt, it is the unelected and “living Constitution” courts. It is our weak-kneed or unscrupulous politicians who trade principles for patronage.
But, my friends, it is also ours, for we have remained either ignorant or silent. I tell you that unless and until we have an informed public who demands that their legislators stand up for a limited and narrow federal government as the Constitution proscribes, the 10th Amendment will lay neglected and the ideal of federalism will wither until the states either become irrelevant or are dissolved.
Let us work to ensure that this dark day never comes.
- If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.




The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution was ratified, so the powers of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court were already laid out before it was ratified. What gives Congress power is not really in the Bill Of Rights, but Article 1 of the Constitution (FYI, the President’s powers are in Article 2, and the Supreme Court’s powers are in Article 3 or 4). These are the enumerated powers of Congress, but the last line is the infamous “necessary and proper” clause, otherwise known as implied powers. It states, “[Congress shall have power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” If you check landmark Supreme Court cases over the years, they tend to flip-flop on what they use as the backing of their decisions, sometimes choosing the states’ right’s amendment, and sometimes using the Congressional powers article, depending on the era. In the early ’30s, your opinions would have been on point with the Supreme Court, as many of Roosevelt’s earlier programs of the New Deal were struck down for precisely what you are opining. It wasn’t until Owen Roberts changed his mind that the Supreme Court supported Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.
Now, you can argue that the Arts and federal influence in education are not “necessary” nor “proper,” but the Department of Education probably came up because Congress made a law or bill (or many) somewhere and needed to build a federal institution to enforce it (or them), which is constitutional. I personally don’t know how it came up, I’m just giving an example. You can argue that the Arts aren’t necessary, but over half of Congress thought it was at some point, and although you think you’re wasting tons and tons of tax dollars, you’d be surprised at how little of your tax dollars go into it as opposed to health (23%), defense (21%), and social security (22%). Only about three percent goes into education, and the Arts fits into the “Other” category, which receives only seven percent.
I don’t have any sources for you on any of this (sorry) because I’m just going through the notes I have for my college political science class, but I can understand your principle, the main point of this article, but I somewhat (not totally) disagree with just that one argument you made.