norml21 - Page 23
Return to Index
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.
Return to Index