Editor’s Note: In an effort to continually expand the Tenth Amendment Center as a forum for education and research, we are pleased to announce the launch of our “publications” section. Here, we’ll feature research papers and more from renowned Constitutional scholars. This first offering, “The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and “Expressly” Delegated Power,” by Kurt T. Lash, is one of the finest examples of Tenth Amendment scholarship available.
It was published in 2008 in the Notre Dame Law Review, which allows individuals and non-profit institutions to distribute it widely (please see copyright notice on the paper for full details).
Abstract
Today, courts and commentators generally agree that early efforts to strictly limit the federal government to only expressly enumerated powers were decisively rebuffed by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.
According to Marshall, the fact that the Framers departed from the language of the Articles of Confederation and omitted the term “expressly” suggested that they intended Congress to have a broad array of implied as well as expressly delegated powers.
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story later wrote, any attempt to read the Tenth Amendment as calling for strict construction of federal power was simply an attempt to insert “expressly” into the text. Today, Marshall’s point regarding the significance of this omitted term is probably one of the least controversial claims about the original understanding of Tenth Amendment as currently exists in legal commentary.
It is also almost certainly wrong.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, early Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase and numerous other members of the Founding generation regularly inserted into their description of federal power the very word that Marshall insisted had been intentionally left out. According to these Founders, Congress had only expressly delegated power.
Upon investigation, it turns out that this rephrasing of the Tenth Amendment actually reflects the original understanding of the text and its underlying principle. Completely missed by generations of Tenth Amendment scholars, the addition of the phrase “or to the people” to the Tenth Amendment ensured that the Clause would be read as a declaration of popular sovereignty.
According to this theory of government, the sovereign people were presumed to retain all powers not expressly delegated away. Repeatedly stressed by advocates of the Constitution as representing the proper construction of federal power, the principle of “expressly delegated powers” meant that Congress could utilize no other means except those necessarily or clearly incident to its enumerated responsibilities.
Consistently read in combination with the Ninth Amendment’s declaration of the retained rights of the people, the Tenth Amendment was broadly understood to establish a rule of strict construction of federal power - the very interpretive principle rejected by John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER
(Adobe Acrobat Required)
Kurt T. Lash is the James P. Bradley Chair of Constitutional Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, CA. Since joining the Loyola Law School faculty in 1993, Professor Lash has published numerous articles on constitutional law, theory and history. His work appears in some of the top law reviews in the United States, including Stanford Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, and Texas Law Review. Most recently, Oxford University Press has published Professor Lash’s book, The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment. In 2007, Professor Lash served as Chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Constitutional Law.
Copyright, Kurt T. Lash, Notre Dame Law Review
