This is from Ludwig von Mises’s economic masterpiece, Human Action, written sixty years ago in 1949:

The problems involved in direct government interference with consumption. . . concern the fundamental issues of human life and social organization. If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject’s conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone.

Self-styled “realistic” people fail to recognize the immense importance of the principles implied. They contend that they do not want to deal with the matter from what, they say, is a philosophic and academic point of view. Their approach is, they argue, exclusively guided by practical considerations. . . .

However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

Radicalism on the drug issue is often seen in terms of the politics of the 1960s and since, but twenty years before Woodstock, one of the most serious and significant thinkers ever to ponder the importance of human liberty said all this, going far beyond what most critics of drug policy would say today.

But is Mises correct? Does he overstate his case? Is the abolition of the right to consume whatever someone wants really taking all his freedom away? And does drug prohibition really send us on the path to censorship and religious persecution?

In America, our liberties our ostensibly protected by the U.S. Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. How much has the drug war compromised our Constitutional rights? Let us consider a countdown, starting with the Tenth Amendment and moving to First.

The Tenth Amendment says “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.” This effectively means that if the Constitution does not grant the power to the federal government over something, then it is for the states and people to decide. Some people here would say this is the most important amendment. If the federal government obeyed it, the entire drug war as we know it would be impossible.

In 1909, Hamilton Wright, U.S. official to the Shanghai Opium Commission, complained that the Constitution was “constantly getting in the way” of his drug war ambitions. Indeed, in domestic politics, there is no Constitutional authorization for a federal drug war whatever. Without a grant of power, the U.S. government is supposed to butt out.

In 1914, Woodrow Wilson signed the Harrison Narcotic Act into law. There was no constitutional basis for this, but at least by the time alcohol prohibition came around, it was recognized that the federal government would need constitutional authority to ban liquor. They passed the 18th Amendment and repealed the disaster of alcohol prohibition with the 21st amendment.

By 1937, however, there was no more such deference to Constitutional procedure. That year, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Marijuana Tax Act into law, effectively banning marijuana at the federal level. All the major federal drug laws since then had no Constitutional basis, and all of them seemed to come with general expansions of federal power. Just as Wilson’s ban on heroin and regulation of cocaine came during the activist Progressive Era and marijuana prohibition was part of FDR’s New Deal, the next major wave of federal drug law came in the 1960s, during the Great Society, and culminated in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act just as Nixon was continuing LBJ’s policies of guns and butter.

This relates to the medical marijuana debates since the 1990s. When states began allowing medicinal pot, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both cracked down on their dispensaries, and many advocates of states’ rights decried this violation of federalism. A case went to the Supreme Court on 10th Amendment grounds and all the liberals on the court, all favoring a federal government with few limits on its power, upheld Bush’s raids. Three conservatives dissented, including Clarence Thomas, arguing that the federal government had no authority through the commerce clause to interfere with California’s medical marijuana policy.

If Obama indeed stops the medical marijuana raids, it will probably not be because, as his spokesman says, he believes “that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.” On general questions of policy, including the drug war, Obama and most liberals favor federal supremacy. If California goes through with legalizing marijuana outright, will Obama really do nothing about it? Will the administration actually find ways to crack down on medical marijuana while claiming the operations it’s targeting are not for medical use — as it has done before? Is it possible that Obama, not believing in the constitutional principles at stake, will accelerate other aspects of the drug war?

The Tenth Amendment alone invalidates the federal drug war, and so too does the next one down.

The Ninth Amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This means that just because a personal right is not specifically mentioned does not mean the federal government can infringe upon it. Certainly the rights to use and sell drugs are being attacked in this very way.

And in moral terms, this is what the drug war means. It is the denial of self-ownership. Someone who can’t decide what to put in himself does not own himself. The logic of the drug war is that the government owns you.

We look at all the rights trampled in the name of the drug war and we see how all rights are connected. People are denied the right to self-medicate and take the treatment they desire. Not just in regard to illegal drugs either, but those that are regulated.

The Food and Drug Administration is tied at the hip to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The pharmaceutical interests who control federal prescription drug policy have a stake in maintaining a control on what drugs people can do. The FDA, by keeping life-saving drugs off the market, has forced tens and tens of thousand Americans to die prematurely. Mary Ruwart puts the number in the millions.

What would amuse me if it were not tragic is that so many liberals defend the FDA even as they question the drug war. But if you have a right to do drugs to get high, you surely also have a right to do any drug that you think might save your life. Medical freedom in its true sense is totally impossible without drug freedom.

Because of the drug war, the right to travel is impeded, and the right to have and transfer money. Laws against money laundering — itself a victimless crime — have sprung up almost entirely because of the drug war. And anyone who believes that the right to practice free enterprise is important and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment must necessarily oppose the drug war, which violates free market principles in a million ways.

Next on our list is the Eighth Amendment, which guarantees that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Well surely any punishment is cruel for a victimless crime. Conservatives might say this is a liberal reading of the Amendment. But at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, prisons as we know them hardly existed, and the notion of imprisoning someone for ten years for growing hemp, on which the Constitution was drafted, would have been seen as quite cruel and quite unusual. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress passed mandatory minimum laws which reduce the discretion of judges in handing out sentences — almost all such federally determined sentences are for drugs or guns.

The average sentence in federal prison for drug trafficking is longer than for sexual abuse. The burgeoning prison state is one of the most horrifying features of modern American history, with the drug war playing a huge part. About one in four or five Americans prisoners are there for non-violent drug offenses — acts that were totally legal in the nineteenth century. Before Reagan stepped up the drug war, there were half a million Americans in prison or jail, and another 1.5 million on parole or probation. There are now more than two million behind bars and seven million total in the correctional system. Prisons grew by 500 percent from 1982 to 2000 in my state of California.

One out of four or five prisoners are there for drugs alone. And for their non-crime, they are sentenced to a personal totalitarianism: Gang violence, an alarming frequency of prison rape, beatings and sometimes death. Americans by the hundreds of thousands who have never raised a finger against anyone are in constant fear of being abused and turned into slaves by their cellmates. How any American can think this is in any way consistent with civilized society boggles the mind.

Bail is often ridiculously high for drug war victims — $1 million or more. The advent of asset forfeiture — whereby the government confiscates your property and essentially accuses it of being guilty of a civil offense — has become an effective way to circumvent the “excessive fines” clause.

What about the Seventh Amendment? It reads: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

I mentioned civil asset forfeiture. It is important to recognize that there is no criminal hearing for the vast majority of forfeiture victims. The property is seized through civil litigation. But since the property itself, and not the owner, is on trial, the Bill of Rights offers no protection. There’s no right to a trial. If a person wants to reclaim his confiscated property, he must ask for a trial. If the court rules that the property be returned, the government can ask for another one, or merely make return of the property contingent upon the victim paying tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

You might be a charter pilot who has his plane taken as part of a drug investigation, and be unable to pay the six grand to get your plane back after being bankrupted by the legal system. This happened to Billy Munnerlyn in the early 1990s. You could be the wrong color or have the wrong amount of cash on you and lose it all to confiscators who get to keep a cut of what they steal.

One point of the Seventh Amendment was to protect the rights of Americans to sue government officials for wrongdoing, and have a fair trial — not the type of mock trial the Founders saw used by the British Crown to let their officials off easy. The drug war has turned this entire idea on its head. Now the government can just take your property without charging you and all you can do is hope that it lets you make your case in a fixed sham proceeding that you are innocent.

The Sixth Amendment reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

For standard crimes like murder, theft, rape and the like, it is perhaps possible to have trials reasonably available to every suspect. But there are simply too many drug offenders for this and no victims to serve as reliable witnesses. So the standard of evidence has been lowered to the point where the mere existence of enough cash and a cop’s say-so is enough to convict.

What’s more, defense attorneys are often burdened with a hundred clients at once, so they must prioritize and leave those who are fated to only a year in prison to lesser hearings. Some judges have even refused to assign public defenders in drug cases.

A dangerous alternative to the trial system is the “drug court,” wrongly touted by some reformers, including the Obama administration. In Obama and Biden’s “Blueprint for Change” they propose to “Expand Use of Drug Courts” to “give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.”

But as Morris Hoffman, a state trial judge in Denver and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado, warned at the USA Today blog in October last year:

[It's] not just that drug courts don’t work, or don’t work well. They have the perverse effect of sending more drug defendants to prison, because their poor treatment results get swamped by an increase in the number of drug arrests. By virtue of a phenomenon social scientists call “net-widening,” the very existence of drug courts stimulates drug arrests.

Police are no longer arresting criminals, they are trolling for patients. Denver’s drug arrests almost tripled in the two years after we began our drug court. At the end of those two years, we were sending almost twice the number of drug defendants to prison than we did before drug court.

Attempting to win the drug war, even in a more progressive sense, is thus no substitute for abandoning it altogether. The only change I can believe we’ll see under Obama is more erosion of the Sixth Amendment.

We’re just getting started. The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be. . . subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mandatory drug testing can be seen as self-incrimination, as soon as the results are used in criminal prosecution. Civil asset forfeiture has allowed for the deprivation of life and liberty without due process, and also for the effective phenomenon of double jeopardy, as people are punished both in the civil and criminal systems.

The Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 expanded the use of forfeiture to include any property connected to the drug crime in any manner. An early 1990s study estimated that 80% of people who lost their property to civil asset forfeiture were never charged with a crime.

We often hear of money being confiscated for drug residue, which can be found on over 90% of the cash in circulation. We hear of people losing their homes, cars, boats and businesses because of the presence of marijuana seeds. The drive to get loot, some of which police get to personally keep, has even led to some deaths, as was the case with Donald Scott, a California rancher gunned down because bureaucrats wanted to seize his land on which they claimed they found some seeds. Michael Bradbury, the Ventura County DA, said that the police raid was “motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government… [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.”

I shouldn’t even have to discuss how the Fourth Amendment has been compromised.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Where to begin? Warrants have become a mere bureaucratic technicality, rubberstamped or often neglected altogether in the pursuit of drug offenders. No-knock raids have become a commonplace in modern American life. 92-year-old women are murdered and have drugs planted on them. Men who shoot no-knock invaders are sentenced to death, and if they’re lucky, have their sentences reduced to life — this happened to Cory Maye in Mississippi. Children are shot in the back. Family pets are killed by laughing officers as they break into homes searching for drugs.

With a real crime, it is often possible to have an “Oath or affirmation” backing the warrant, which can actually “describe the persons or things to be seized.” In a murder case, a warrant can describe a bloody knife. Drug war warrants are typically too vague to pass constitutional muster. Mere suspicion that some law is being broken is often enough.

The courts have ruled that if the government tries to arrest you when you’re in public, and you escape into your home, they can now search the home without a warrant. As for automobiles, drug war roadblocks have erased the Fourth Amendment concerning cars, which are now treated as the property of the state.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that police may prevent people from entering their own homes while the police apply for a warrant. These abuses are often glorified on television as the necessary implements to catch vicious criminals, but they originated with, and are principally used for, the war on drugs.

Americans tend to look at the Third Amendment as an anachronism. “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Surely this hasn’t been touched by prohibition, has it?

Even by a very narrow reading, I believe it has. In one instance, in 1997, 40 members of the Army National Guard moved into the Las Palmas Housing Project in Puerto Rico to search for drugs. Years later, there were hundreds there.

More broadly, the entire spirit of the Third Amendment has been trounced. The point of the amendment was to prevent the abuses seen with the British Quartering Act, to protect Americans from having to quarter soldiers — to support them, even financially — except at wartime when and through legal means. But all around us, we have seen the police militarized in the name of the drug war.

Some conservatives objected when Bush modified the insurrection act and amassed more presidential power to call up the National Guard on his own say-so. But this trend began before 9/11. In a hearing on the drug war in 1994, then Congressman Chuck Schumer said, “The National Guard is a powerful, ready-made fighting force. Redefining its role in the post Cold War era presents exciting possibilities in the war against crime.”

Also troubling have been the attempts to weaken Posse Comitatus, which since Reconstruction has forbade the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. But before the war on terrorism, there was the drug-war loophole. In the 1980s, Posse Comitatus was amended to allow for military-police cooperation in drug interdiction. Whereas the military was understood to be inappropriate for the enforcement of federal civil rights during Reconstruction, it was supposedly okay for the drug war. This precedent culminated in the largest massacre of American civilians by their own government since Wounded Knee.

Why was the military involved in Waco sixteen years ago? Because the government decided to treat their upcoming publicity-stunt raid as a drug measure. They claimed the Branch Davidians had a meth lab. That’s how they got the warrant and military involved. That’s how they got the military weapons. It was only later that the excuse shifted to child abuse or illegal gun ownership.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment. One of the terrible tragedies of our time is that more people do not understand the connection between the drug war and gun rights.

As soon as violating people’s rights to find drugs became excusable, the crusade against private gun ownership got a big boost. Both concern the ownership of inanimate objects. As wars on possession crimes, both government crusades rely on the same kinds of dirty tactics, the punishment of minor offenders with disproportionately long sentences as a deterrent, the erosion of due process, privacy and the rights of the accused.

The relationship between the drug war and violent crime has been documented. The spike in violent crime following prohibition has traditionally led to more severe enforcement of gun laws. Both gun control and the drug war lead to violent black markets, and thus more state power in a spiraling vicious cycle of mutual reinforcement.

It was, after all, the bootlegging gangs that emerged out of alcohol prohibition that served as the inspiration for the first major federal gun law: The National Firearms Act of 1934. A year after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 passed on a similarly used an abusive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Moreover, just as with terrorism, the two issues became linked in law enforcement. Federal law mandates additional penalties if drug dealers are caught in mere possession of a firearm. Nobody wants to stick up for the rights of drug dealers to keep and bear arms. But so long as they are violating no one’s rights, they should be left in peace. There are many legitimate reasons, from a moral perspective, that a dealer would want to defend himself.

Many non-violent drug convicts are automatically denied the right to bear arms. This is a serious and grave attack on the human rights of drug convicts who have already paid a debt to society that they didn’t even owe.

The lesson is clear: If you want your right to self-defense protected, you must oppose drug prohibition.

Last but not least is the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

For years, politicians have wanted to censor us, using the drug war as an excuse. Probably the most notable example was Senators Feinstein and Hatch’s proposed Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in its original language would have outlawed speech that advocated drug use or production and cracked down on websites that merely linked to sites that sold drug paraphernalia. Then there is the more general chilling effect of students being harassed in public schools for outwardly advocating drug use or legalization.

Here in New Hampshire, Ian Freeman has been threatened with criminal penalties for the act of advocating drug possession.

As for religious liberty, American Indians have long used hallucinogens as religious rites, and have risked penalties under federal law for the peaceful exercise of religion. This brings us to a fundamental incompatibility between the First Amendment and the drug war.

Under the American Indian Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1994, American Indians can use peyote because it is part of their religion. But if something is peaceful, anyone should be allowed to do it, whether it is recognized by the government as religious or not. For peyote users to be jailed because they do not believe in its spiritual dimension is a de facto official government endorsement and granted privilege for some religious groups. If it can conceivably be allowed for the religious, it must constitutionally be allowed to everyone. Yet for peyote users to be jailed despite their religion is a violation of their religious liberty. The only way to reconcile religious liberty with federal drug law is to abolish it altogether.

Thus we see that Ludwig von Mises was hardly off the mark. The entire Bill of Rights has been shredded in the drug war. In Constitutional terms, “If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption,” one does indeed “take all freedoms away.” With even the precious First Amendment battered, Mises was right that the drug warriors “unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.”

The alternative, say the drug warriors, would be worse. They persist in their claims that we are utopians and unrealistic. But it is their vision of a drug-free America that is unrealistic. America’s prisons are constantly monitored and prisoners have very little of what we would call civil liberty, yet drugs flow throughout the system. America itself could become one big drug prison and their vision would be no closer to being obtained.

Anthony Gregory is Editor-in-Chief at Campaign for Liberty, a research analyst at the Independent Institute, a columnist at LewRockwell.com, a policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation, a freedom activist, and a musician. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.

Copyright © 2009 Anthony Gregory. Licensed under creative commons. A longer version of this piece appeared on LewRockwell.com

It was originally published in 2003 in the Nevada Law Journal.

Introduction:

“The most numerous objects of legislation belong to the States. Those of the National Legislature [are] but few.”
–Rufus King, at the Federal Constitutional Convention

In constitutional form, the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and all powers not enumerated are reserved exclusively to the states and the people. The federal government’s enumerated powers have been construed so broadly, however, that the modern student may be pardoned for asking if anything really has been reserved. Even forty years ago, Professor Lindsey Cowen could say “As things now stand, there may not be any powers which are ‘not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,’” and, of course, the federal government has grown a good deal since then. Over the past century, the power to regulate commerce has come to include the power to regulate agriculture, the power to tax has become the power to control inheritances, and the power to spend for the “general Welfare” has enabled the federal government to create programs to inculcate and educate, as well as for many other purposes.

The proffered legal basis for most of this expansion of federal power is the wording of the original Constitution. Subsequent amendment justifies relatively little of it. This fact, in turn, raises the oft-argued question of whether the powers granted the federal government in the original Constitution, especially as modified by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, really encompass such subjects as agriculture, education, health care, and the like.

The drafters of the Constitution chose to enumerate the powers of the federal government but not, with a few procedural exceptions, the exclusive powers of states. However, that decision should not be understood as implying that exclusive state powers were narrow, but rather that they were vast. As the drafters explained, they had decided not to enumerate the states’ reserved powers for the same reasons they had decided not to include a bill of rights: first, the reserved powers were too extensive to enumerate; second, a discrete list would encourage the pretense that the federal government could act everywhere else.

On the other hand, if we did have an enumeration of exclusive reserved state powers, perhaps it would enable us to understand more precisely the scope of the granted powers. Such an enumeration also could shed light on basic principles of American federalism. For example, an enumeration might help us determine whether it is constitutionally true, as is sometimes claimed, that growing national economic interdependence justifies more expansive interpretation of federal powers. Put another way, an enumeration could help us determine whether the presence of externalities – spill-over effects – from one state to another creates a constitutionally defensible reason for further central control.

In point of fact, leading federalists left in the historical record some rather specific enumerations of the reserved powers of states. They offered these lists as part of the basis of the political bargain by which the Constitution was ratified. As such, these lists help us divine the actual meaning of such phrases as “general Welfare” and “Commerce . . . among the several States.”

Surprisingly, there has been almost no attention in the legal literature to the federalists’ enumeration of state powers for the benefit of the ratifying public. In this Article, I distill the essence of these enumerations for the modern reader. After doing so, I conclude that the listed items strongly suggest that a guiding principle of American federalism is a Coasean one: externalities and/or interdependence, without more, generally do not serve as constitutional justifications for further centralization.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER
(Adobe Acrobat Required)

Professor Natelson teaches Constitutional Law, Legal History, Advanced Constitutional Law, Remedies, and a seminar on the First Amendment. He is a recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and on several occasions he has been the first to uncover key background facts about the Constitution’s meaning. He has written for some of the nation’s most prestigious academic journals and publishers. Moreover, his work is frequently cited in top journals, such as Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal. He also edits the web page, The Scholarship of the Original Understanding of the Constitution, and collected and edited the material that forms the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Montana Constitution.

Copyright, Robert Natelson, Nevada Law Journal

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 €œexpressly€ 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 €œexpressly€ 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 €œor 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 €œexpressly 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

Get the New Book Today!

How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life?

One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers.  But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are.

One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power.  This derives primarily from two sources:

(1) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” and

(2) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . .”

According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states.  They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.

How can they justify this?  Basically, they make two arguments.  The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor.  (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.)

This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word “commerce” meant more than trade.  Instead, he contended, “commerce” included all gainful economic activities.  Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy.

An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor.  He maintains that “commerce” means any human interaction – so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn’t trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech.

On investigation, however, the claim that “commerce” meant “all gainful activities” or “all interactions” turns out to be completely untrue.  It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states.

But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word “commerce” in the historical records from the Founding Era.  And those records show clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf).

The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Don’t let anyone tell you the present court is “conservative” on such matters.)   This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote “Commerce,” they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation.

But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now “necessary and proper” for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce.

But this argument also ignores history.  Economic interdependence is nothing new: the promoters of the Constitution themselves emphasized it.  But they also assured the public that, interdependent or not, most activities could be regulated only by the states.

They added that the Necessary and Proper Clause added nothing to federal authority, but merely clarified that the legal “doctrine of incidental powers” applied to the Constitution.  And no power could be “incidental” if its scope swamped the principal power.  In other words, Congress couldn’t take over a big field like manufacturing or agriculture on the pretense of regulating commerce.

If the Supreme Court were doing its job in this area, it would restrict Congress to the authority granted by the people through the Constitution.  Because the Court is not doing what it should, it is up to the people to recall the federal government to its constitutional limits.

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute. He is the co-author of The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and author of The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center).

Our Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers.  All powers not listed were reserved to the states and people.

That is commonly known.  What is not commonly known is that during the debate over adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution’s advocates also enumerated powers the federal government absolutely would not have.

When the Constitution was being debated, the opponents’ most important objection was that the new federal government might have too much power.  The Bill of Rights - including the Tenth Amendment - was adopted to quiet such fears.

In addition, however, the Constitution’s proponents publicly told the American people what subjects would be within the states’ exclusive jurisdiction - and outside the federal government’s control.  They did this in a variety of speeches, newspaper articles, letters, and pamphlets.

Who were these “enumerators?”  Most were citizens of very high standing.

They included, among others: Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson (a convention delegate and chief proponent in Pennsylvania), Edmund Pendleton (chancellor of Virginia and chairman of his state’s ratifying convention), James Iredell (North Carolina judge, pro-Constitution floor leader at his state’s ratifying convention and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice), John Marshall (a ratifier and later U.S. Chief Justice); Maryland Congressman Alexander Contee Hanson, Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant (a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), Alexander White (Virginia lawyer, ratifier, and later U.S. Senator), prominent businessman Tench Coxe, and – of course – James Madison.

Here are some of the powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere:

• governance of religion
• training the militia and appointing militia officers
• control over local government
• most crimes
• state justice systems
• family affairs
• real property titles and conveyances
• wills and inheritance
• the promotion of  useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights
• control of personal property outside of commerce
• governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states
• education
• services for the poor and unfortunate
• licensing of taverns
• roads other than post roads
• ferries and bridges
• regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.

For an article on the subject, see The Enumerated Powers of States, available at: http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

“Every school child in America should be required to read the Bible.”

At that point, I stopped clapping for Patrick Buchanan, who was speaking in Kansas City during his failed 2000 presidential bid. The government shouldn’t force people to read books, even the Bible.

There is some truth to the liberal insult that conservatives want to create a Christian theocracy. Social conservatives tend to overemphasize religion when talking about social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

People who support limited government are turned off by the Republican Party because of the religious overtones. They don’t want a government run by preachers.

Religious right preachers sound silly when they proclaim that natural disasters are a result of God’s wrath over abortion and gay marriage. A more sound explanation for opposition rests in the distinctly Western idea of federalism.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, New York, California, Colorado and Hawaii had legalized specific abortion procedures. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, sued to have an abortion in Texas, a state that did not allow the procedure.

Abortion is not an inalienable right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment requires that this issue be solved by state governments.

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law, not create it. By legalizing abortion across the country, the court overstepped its boundaries by taking on the role of the legislative branch.

This dangerous precedent of judicial fiat has spilled over into state supreme courts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court forced the Massachusetts legislature to recognize gay marriages in 2004.

Not to be outdone, the California Supreme Court invented the right for Californians in 2008, despite a previous statewide vote defining marriage only between one man and one woman. California voters overturned the court in November by approving a state constitutional amendment barring future gay marriages in the state.

That won’t be enough to stop the runaway California judiciary. The same court is reviewing case law to find any reason to once again overturn the will of the people.

The Founding Fathers did not create a system of government that gives judges the right to trump the will of the majority. A vote of the people should be worth more than the printed ballot paper.

The biggest worry isn’t the one percent of Americans who voted for Buchanan who want a Christian theocracy. It’s the vast array of leftwing politicians, activists and donors who want to create a judicial monarchy.

The purpose of law is to protect the rights of individuals against the excesses of the state. An oppressive judicial system punishes individuals by taking away their freedoms, starting with the right to vote.

Sensible people across the political spectrum can support a return to federalism by allowing citizens in each state the right to determine social issues. Some states will legalize marijuana and prostitution while others will ban abortion and gay marriage.

Those who don’t like the laws can move to a different state. That’s a much better system than one where the laws for the entire country are re-written after every judicial selection.

Ryan Cooper lives in Springfield. He can be reached at ryankcooper@gmail.com.

No fundamental provision of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is more neglected—or thoroughly violated—today than the Tenth Amendment. It is violated in spirit and in practice. Its violation is advocated implicitly and explicitly: in the teaching of American history and government, in legal theory, in what passes for “Constitutional Law,” and in the functioning of everyday American politics and government.

Our Constitution—as the very words of the Tenth Amendment make clear—was intended to be a delegated powers document. The states which formed and ratified the Constitution were free and independent states—nations—which delegated certain authority and powers to the new central or national government created by the Constitution. They delegated—and manifestly intended to delegate—only those powers stated in the Constitution: and no more. They forbade themselves certain other powers which they also stated in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

By clear intention and unmistakable logic the several states entrusted no more authority or powers to the central government which their representatives had created. All other authority and powers which the states had had before they ratified the Constitution they retained to themselves—and intended to retain to themselves.

The Constitution therefore is also a reserved powers document. The powers which the states have neither forbidden to themselves in the Constitution nor delegated to the central government in the Constitution are reserved to the states. These powers are “reserved to the States respectively”: they are reserved to each respective state.

These reserved powers are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This does not mean that they are reserved to the people of the nation as a whole, for that would mean that they are delegated to the central government—and would make the Tenth Amendment meaningless and ridiculous. The reserved powers are reserved to the people of the respective states. The powers which the government of each state or the people of that state have not delegated to the central government are reserved to the people or government of each state.

The neglected, abused, violated Tenth Amendment is much more than an amendment to our Constitution, much more than the final amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment is the anchor and guarantee of federalism, a fundamental and essential principle of the Constitution—a principle insisted upon by the states whose representatives framed and ratified the Constitution.

It protects the self-government of the people of each state by protecting the powers which the state has neither assigned to the central government nor forbidden to itself in the Constitution.  It thus protects each state’s authority and freedom to govern itself as its people and their representatives see fit (so long as they do not set up a non-republican form of civil government or violate the Constitution’s prohibitions of certain powers to them).

The Tenth Amendment thereby is a key protector of the rights and liberty of the minorities who are the people of each state, for the people of any state are but a minority of the people of the nation. It protects them against abuses of power by a national majority or a minority which may have control of the reins of power in the national government.  The Tenth Amendment is a protector of localism and local self-government against centralism, the theory and practice of top-down, centralized government.

The Tenth Amendment is not an isolated thing, for it is an additional, written protection for federalism, and federalism is, as James Madison tells us in Federalist No. 51, an essential half of the Constitution’s system of securing the blessings of liberty via a system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The famous system of separation of powers, with accompanying checks and balances between and among the three branches of our central/national government, was intended to protect liberty and justice by preventing the concentration of power, and consequent abuses of power and usurpations of power, in any one branch of the national government. Federalism, Madison tells us, is a system of separation of powers and checks and balances between the central or national government and the state governments. So important is federalism’s separation of powers with accompanying checks and balances between the central government and the state governments that federalism provides us “a double security to liberty.”

By providing a double security to liberty federalism works to protect all the rights and liberties, all the freedom, intended to be protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Federalism gives Americans a double security for all their constitutional rights and liberties.

Federalism—not the phony “federalism” as redefined by “political scientists” and power-hungry politicians, but the separation of powers between a would-be all-powerful central government and our states—is more than a constitutional principle. Given the fallen nature of man, it is not time-bound but timeless this side of Heaven. It is essential to the protection of liberty and justice.

The Tenth Amendment was intended to make it clear that federalism is to remain basic to our Constitution and constitutional law. No fundamental provision of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights needs more urgently to be restored to its rightful place in our civil government and law.

Restoration of the Tenth Amendment to its rightful place in American political thought, constitutional law, and civil government is a necessary condition of the restoration of justice and freedom in America.

It might seem strange that the Legislature is considering action to declare Idaho’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State sovereignty should be a given.

Yet, it isn’t. “Change” is the latest buzzword in politics; that’s what President Obama campaigned for when he ran for office and since he took office in January. He wants “change” in the political climate in Washington and “change” in how business is conducted.

Don’t get me wrong, change isn’t all bad. We go through constant changes in our personal lives and change is often good in politics. But when it comes to states’ rights and upholding something as sacred as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, then the kind of “change” the president is talking about is not healthy.

In my view, we need to get back to the basics of sound government – the blueprint put together by George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and other framers of our Constitution.

That’s why I am sponsoring a joint memorial before the Legislature. Idaho must send a strong message to the president and Congress reminding our national leaders that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Unfortunately, over the years the states have become agents of the federal government. We are seeing those dynamics in the form of the Endangered Species Act, the management of wolves and other wildlife, No Child Left Behind, regulation of air quality and other measures.

It’s time for the federal government to back off and it’s high time for states to control their destiny. Idahoans are perfectly capable of solving Idaho problems. I totally resist the thinking that the president, the Congress and federal agencies somehow possess greater wisdom on issues as they affect states. I am opposed to the federal government’s practice of mandating certain actions by states under the threat of civil or criminal penalties, or loss of funding. The memorial seeks to stop that practice.

As legislators, we need to keep fundamental states’ rights in mind as we consider the federal stimulus package that recently was approved by Congress and signed by the president. Here are two big problems I have:

• This package appears to be to be an outright assault on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

• I cannot figure out how the nation can spend its way out of a recession. Part of the problem is extended credit, and the president wants to solve the problem by granting more credit. I don’t know of many people in District 2 who see that as a winning formula.

Idaho is scheduled to receive about $1 billion in federal stimulus money and the governor and others are trying to figure how much of that money can be used – and what kind of strings are attached with those federal funds. If the federal funds help plug some holes in the state budget, or delays larger-than-expected budget cuts in programs such as education, transportation or Medicaid, fine. But I’ll say “no thanks” if the money goes to federally mandated programs that Idaho does not need or want. I’ll say “no thanks” if receipt of those federal funds compromises states’ rights, or the provisions under the 10th Amendment.

Dick Harwood [send him email] R-St. Maries, represents District 2 in the Idaho House.

Steven Palazzo is the principle author of the resolution along with 29 additional authors – find status updates here.

Here’s the full text of the resolution:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REINFORCING THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE AND AUTHORITY OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER CERTAIN POWERS AND DISCOURAGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM IMPOSING CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE MANDATES.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:  “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”; and   WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science; and

WHEREAS, James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.  The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”; and

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.  The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government”; and

WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.”  He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people.  If one government encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.  Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by the certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them”; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates appear to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), stated that Congress may not simply “commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program”; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court in that case went on to express that, “No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.  The Constitution instead gives Congress the authority to regulate matters directly and to pre-empt contrary state regulation.  Where a federal interest is sufficiently strong to cause Congress to legislate, it must do so directly; it may not conscript state governments as its agents”; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the Mississippi Legislature, as an agent for the people of the State of Mississippi, to remind the federal government to act only in ways that will ensure the protection and preservation of constitutional rights granted to each state in the framework of the Constitution of the United States as crafted by our nation’s founding fathers, so as not to deny each state the enumerated right of self-governance without an over-reaching arm of federal government mandates and implications:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, THE SENATE CONCURRING  THEREIN, That the State of Mississippi hereby reinforces the fundamental principles and authority of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and discourage the federal government, as our agent, from imposing certain restrictive mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be furnished to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Mississippi Congressional Delegation and to the members of the Capitol Press Corps.

[audio:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/audio/OneRadioNetwork-Boldin-030309.mp3]