SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

Footnotes (235)

Beta

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and 'Expressly' Delegated Power

Kurt T. Lash
Loyola Law School Los Angeles


October 2007

Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-31

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 a strict construction of federal power was simply an attempt to foist the term 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: 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 Clause (and federal power). Completely missed by generations of Tenth Amendment scholars, by adding the phrase or to the people to the Tenth Amendment, its framers ensured that the Clause would be read as a declaration of popular sovereignty. This declaration established what the Founders referred to as the principle of expressly delegated powers, meaning that Congress could utilize no other means except those necessarily incident to its enumerated responsibilities. Particularly when read in combination with the Ninth Amendment's declaration of the retained rights of the people, the Tenth's assertion of popular sovereignty established a rule of strict construction - the very interpretive principle rejected by John Marshall in McCulloch.

Working Paper Series

Date posted: July 12, 2007 ; Last revised: December 07, 2007

Suggested Citation

Lash, Kurt T., The Original Meaning of an Omission: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and 'Expressly' Delegated Power (October 2007). Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-31. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000087


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Kurt T. Lash (Contact Author)
Loyola Law School Los Angeles ( email )
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
United States
(213) 736-1137 (Phone)
(213) 380-3769 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,323
Downloads: 223
Download Rank: 38,098
Footnotes: 235
People who downloaded
this paper also downloaded:

1. Kurt Lash's Majoritarian Difficulty
By Randy Barnett

2. The New Legal Realism
By Thomas Miles and Cass Sunstein

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo3 in 0.407 seconds.