norml21 - Page 23

 In the 1941 decision of United States v_ Dar___, 312 U.S.
 I00, 61 So Cto 451 (1941), the Supreme Court expressly reversed
 the earlier interpretation of the commerce clause in H amman v.
 Dagenhart, stating as follows:
 Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth
 Amendment The amendment states but a
 truism that all is retained whi_h has not
 been surrendered° There is nothing in the
 history of its adoption to suggest that it
 was more than declaratory of the relationship
 between the national and state _overnments as
 it had been established by the Constitution
 before the Amendment, or that i:s purpose was
 other than to allay fears that a new
 government might seek to exercise power not
 granted, and that the states might not be
 able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
 312 U.S. at 123-124 (emphasis added).
 The decision of the Court in Darb_ was limited exclusively
 to the issue of the relationship between the national and state
 governments so as to resolve the question of federal versus state
 authority and impose a proper interpretation of the commerce
 clause of the Constitution° As applied to the relationship
 between the states and the federal government_ the Tenth
 Amendment may be viewed as a "truism," as was pointed out by both
 the Court in Darby and Madison when his Eighth Proposal was
 submitted. However, the Tenth Amendment is not a truism with its
 final clause; viewed in conjunction with the Ninth Amendment, it
 is properly conceived as delineating powers possessed by neither
 the federal government nor the states, but _by t_e e le.
 23