1989]                   AMPLIFYING THE TENTH AMENDMENT                           923


amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.67 Collector v. Day68 typified the cases during this period. In Day, the Court held that a national income tax could not be levied upon the salaries of state officials and that the states and the federal government, as two separate entities, operated independently of each other within the constitutional authority granted or reserved to them.69 As a result of this general policy, the Supreme Court put teeth into the tenth amendment and effectively protected the sovereignty of the states.70




In the 1920s, following the passage of the seventeenth amendment, the Court began reducing the protections the tenth amendment previously provided to the states. During this period, several cases extended Congress' power under the

Previous < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > Next 

67. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) (Bituminous Coal Conservation Act is unconstitutional as it regulates the production of coal; this right is reserved to the states); United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) (attempts by the United States to control farm production and prices violates the tenth amendment); Hopkins Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Cleary, 296 U.S. 315 (1935) (congressional acts cannot convert a state building and loan association into a federal association as it would encroach upon powers reserved to the states under the tenth amendment); United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935) (the United States has no right to impose sanction for violations of state law); A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (regulation of intrastate poultry production that has only an indirect bearing on interstate commerce infringes upon the tenth amendment); McCormick & Co. v. Brown, 286 U.S. 131 (1932) (states may proscribe use of alcohol under police powers reserved to it under the tenth amendment; proscription under the eighteenth amendment specifies a power concurrent with the United States); Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922) (congressional acts designed to penalize companies employing child labor is intrastate regulation reserved to the states); Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922) (taxes to impose compliance with federal regulation is an attempt to infringe upon a state's authority under the tenth amendment); Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921) (Congress cannot limit expenditures of United States candidates as that power is reserved to the states); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (Congress, neither by law nor by treaty, may interfere with a state's authority to regulate the hunting of game birds within its territory); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) (federal laws penalizing goods made by children infringes upon the state's authority under the tenth amendment); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) (right to use a river running through the state is a power reserved to each state); Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906) (penalizing the racially discriminatory actions of private parties is a power reserved to the states); Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904) (United States can regulate interstate commerce, but regulation of intrastate commerce is a power reserved to the states); Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900) (defining the procedures by which state officers are selected is a power reserved to the state); Plumer v. Coler, 178 U.S. 115 (1900) (states can impose inheritance taxes on any property regulated by its inheritance laws including federal bonds); Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (interest on state and municipal bonds is immune from taxation under the tenth amendment); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) (regulation of the manufacture of alcoholic beverages is a police power reserved to the states under the tenth amendment); Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. (1 Wall.) 113 (1870) (state employees cannot be taxed by the United States); Springfield Township v. Quick, 63 U.S. (1 How.) 56 (1859) (the power to collect and lay taxes is a power reserved to the states and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has the right to interfere with the state in the collection of those taxes); Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 46 U.S. (1 How.) 504 (1847) (regulation of intrastate use of alcoholic beverages is a power reserved to the states); New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (1 Pet.) 102 (1837) (the power of the state to compel shipowners to report the names, age, and occupation of passengers they carry to the State of New York is not an unconstitutional act contravening the federal right to regulate interstate commerce, but is a valid exercise of police power reserved to the states under the tenth amendment); see generally CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH  SERVICE, supra note 56, at 1418.

68. 78 U.S. (1 Wall.) 113 (1871).

69. Id. at 124.

70. New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 595 (1946) (Douglas, J., dissenting). If the power to tax the states is conceded, then the tenth amendment will fail to give the states the independence they were always assumed to have. Id.

Previous < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > Next