“The Baneful Influence of this Narrow Construction”

Author(s):  
David S. Schwartz

McCulloch v. Maryland and its principles came under attack during the Jacksonian era, and the Supreme Court under John Marshall’s successor, Roger Taney, ignored McCulloch into oblivion and reversed its thrust. The Taney Court prioritized states’ rights over federal power, to protect the constitutional position of slavery. McCulloch and Gibbons v. Ogden had refrained from committing the Court to implied commerce powers, and Gibbons also invited the Taney Court to ignore McCulloch. To the Jacksonian justices of the Taney Court, preservation of slave-state sovereignty—not the power of Congress to act for the benefit of the whole people—was the bedrock principle of the Constitution. Reserved state powers under the Tenth Amendment were sufficient to block implied federal powers. Moreover, states could regulate matters expressly delegated to the United States when conducive to exercising their reserved powers.

Federalism-E ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
Lucy Ackerman

This paper argues that the Tenth Amendment was a beneficial compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and as a result the Amendment is not a truism, but instead integral to securing state sovereignty and protecting the integrity of federalism.  The paper begins by describing the historical context for the inclusion of the Amendment and the framers’ reasoning for its inclusion. The paper continues on to evaluate the Amendment from its conception until present day. The paper refutes the Amendment as a truism, displaying how the Supreme Court has significantly developed the relevance and use of the Amendment through two major time periods: the interwar period and the years following the Supreme Court case Schechter Corp. v. United States. A variety of Supreme Court cases, peer reviewed articles, and recently published news articles are employed to illustrate the Amendment’s development and relevance to federalism in the United States.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-141
Author(s):  
Becky Harris

On Monday, May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States struck a fatal blow to the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) when it determined PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Prior to the PASPA repeal, Nevada had been the only state in the United States (US) authorized to offer a full complement of legal sports betting options. Because, Nevada’s race books and sports pools have had the ability to offer wagers on sports since 1947, those legal sports betting operations were “grandfathered” into PASPA when it was passed by Congress in 1992. Having anticipated repeal as a possible outcome, four states passed laws making sports betting legal in case the Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey’s favor, and one state pre-emptively legalized sports betting through a ballot measure. With barriers removed by the PASPA repeal, state gambling regulators were able to grant licenses and adopt regulations. State legislatures were also able legalize sports wagering during their upcoming legislative sessions. And they did!


1988 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1019-1028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald N. Bersoff ◽  
Laurel P. Malson ◽  
Donald B. Verrilli

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document