Terms in this set (58)

10th amendment says powers not delegated to the U.S. in the constitution or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; Question about whether the 10th amend. is a judicially enforceable limit on congress's powers: can fed laws be declared unconstitutional as violating 10th amend? Court is inconsistent throughout history. One approach: 10th amend is not a separate constraint on congress but just a reminder that congress only may legislate if it has authority under the constitution. Here, federal law would never be found unconstitutional as violating the 10th amend but could be invalidated as exceeding the scope of Congress's powers in Art. I or another constitutional provision, This was what court did in the 19th century: federal laws generally constitutional as long as congress acted w/in scope of its authority; Also shifted back to this approach from 1937-1990s: only 1 law found to violate 10th amend. Different approach: 10th amend. protects state sovereignty form federal intrusion. Here, 10th amend is key protection of states' rights and federalism: reserves a zone of activity to the states for their exclusive control, and federal laws intruding into this zone should be declared unconstitutional by the courts. In the first third of the 20th Century, court took this view, found that 10th amend. reserved control over production and attempts to regulate production found unconstitutional. Modern trend in NY v. United States and Prinz is to uphold 10th amendment limitations. NY v. United States: it is unconstitutional for Congress to compel state legislature to adopt laws or state agencies to adopt regulations. However, congress can set standards that state/local governments must meet, attach strings