---
title: U.S. Const. Amend. X. Powers Reserved to the States or the People
collection: code
id: us-const:amend-x
cite_as: U.S. Const. Amend. X
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=1120
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-ix.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-xi.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 8719
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x.md?notes=all&start=11512
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION / Amendments
---

# U.S. Const. Amend. X. Powers Reserved to the States or the People

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

## Cross References

Enumeration of rights not denial of others, Ga. Const. 1983 Art I, Sec. I, Para. XXIX and CS 1-2-6.

Rights of victims, Ga. Const. 1983 Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXX.

Persons and their rights, § 1-2-1 et seq.

## Law Reviews

For comment on United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S. Ct. 556, 91 L. Ed. 754 (1946), upholding constitutionality of Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., curbing political activity of state and federal employees, see 9 Ga. B.J. 459 (1947).

For comment on Oklahoma v. United States Civil Serv. Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 67 S. Ct. 544, 91 L. Ed. 794 (1947), upholding constitutionality of Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., see 10 Ga. B.J. 118 (1947).

For comment on United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 72 S. Ct. 510, 97 L. Ed. 54 (1953), holding unconstitutional the federal excise and occupational tax on wagering as an invasion of the state’s police powers and violative of the privilege against self-incrimination, see 15 Ga. B.J. 505 (1953).

For article, “Interposition, Nullification and the Delicate Division of Power in a Federal System,” see 5 J. of Pub. L. 2 (1956).

For article arguing against constitutional justification for the sending of federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas and the federalization of Arkansas troops, see 20 Ga. B.J. 325 (1957).

For comment, “The ‘Right to Work’: Individual or Collective Right,” focusing on Railway Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S. Ct. 714, 100 L. Ed. 2d 1112 (1956), see 6 J. of Pub. L. 263 (1957).

For comment discussing the constitutionality of the statutory prohibition against expenditures by labor unions in connection with federal elections, 18 U.S.C. § 610, see 21 Ga. B.J. 575 (1959).

For article discussing federalism under the Constitution, see 24 Ga. B.J. 352 (1962).

For comment on Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962), and the unconstitutionality of state composed prayer in a public school, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 284 (1962).

For article suggesting recent history of Supreme Court indicates judicial usurpation of constitutional authority, see 25 Ga. B.J. 279 (1963).

For comment suggesting Georgia’s Sunday Work Law (former Code 1933, § 26-6905) is a valid exercise of police power, see 18 Mercer L. Rev. 288 (1966).

For article discussing functional broadening of Congress’ delegated powers and its effect on civil liberties, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 103 (1969).

For note discussing limitations on national police power, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 359 (1970).

For note, “Selecting and Certifying National Political Convention Delegates — A Party or a State Right?”, see 4 Ga. L. Rev. 875 (1970).

For article on the judicial development of the due process clause of U.S. Const., amend. 14, and the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 533 (1971).

For article, “The Treaty Power and Family Law,” see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 55 (1972).

For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973).

For article discussing validity of executive privilege as defense to congressional demand for information, see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 809 (1974).

For note discussing the commerce power, U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3, and its relation to this amendment in light of National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976), see 25 Emory L. J. 937 (1976).

For article discussing developing principles of state sovereignty limitations on Congress’ exercise of its granted powers, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 35 (1976).

For article, “In their own image: The reframing of the due process clause by the United States Supreme Court,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 479 (1979).

For comment on Pope v. City of Atlanta, 242 Ga. 331, 249 S.E.2d 16 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S. Ct. 1281, 59 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1979), see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 375 (1979).

For comment on Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 100 S. Ct. 2758, 65 L. Ed. 2d 902 (1980), regarding the constitutionality of the ten percent set aside for minority contractors, etc., see 29 Emory L.J. 1127 (1980).

For note, “Interstitial Lawmaking: Uniformity or Conformity?”, see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1235 (1981).

For article discussing the separation of powers implications of implied rights of actions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 973 (1983).

For note discussing the doctrine of state sovereignty, see 35 Mercer L. Rev 395 (1983).

For article, “The New Judicial Federalism: Where We Are Now,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 1075 (1985).

For article, “Legal Positivism and Federalism: The Certification Experience,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 999 (1985).

For article, “Federalism and the Traditions of American Political Theory,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 981 (1985).

For article, “Federalism and Rights,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 917 (1985).

For article, “Supreme Court Review of State Court ‘Federal’ Decisions: A Study in Interactive Federalism,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 861 (1985).

For article, “The Ambiguous Independent and Adequate State Ground in Criminal Cases: Federalism Along a M bius Strip,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 799 (1985).

For article discussing fundamental principles of federalism, “Garcia and the Values of Federalism: On the Need for a Recurrence to Fundamental Principles,” see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 789 (1985).

For comment on Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 523 (1985).

For comment, “Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis,” see 36 Emory L.J. 285 (1987).

For article, “Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial,” see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987).

For article, “A Senate of Five: An Essay on Sexuality and Law,” see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 859 (1989).

For article, “Individual Rights and the Powers of Government,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 343 (1993).

For article, “The Structure of Rights,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 415 (1993).

For article, “Rights: Afterthoughts,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 473 (1993).

For article, “Core Societal Values De-serve Federal Aid: Schools, Tax Credits, and the Establishment Clause,” see 34 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1999).

For article, “The Principled and Unprin-cipled Grounds of the New Federalism: A Call for Detachment in the Constitutional Adjudication of Federalism,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 811 (2002).

For note, “How Are Local Governments Responding to Student Rental Problems in University Towns in the United States, Canada, and England?,” see 33 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 497 (2005).

For note, “The Ill Effects of a United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,” see 33 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 621 (2005).

For comment, “Public Health vs. Patient Rights: Reconciling Informed Consent with HPR Vaccination,” see 58 Emory L.J. 761 (2009).

For comment, “I Object: The RLUIPA as a Model for Protecting the Conscience Rights of Religious Objectors to Same-Sex Relationships,” see 59 Emory L.J. 259 (2009).

For article, “Lochner, Lawrence, and Liberty,” see 27 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 609 (2011).

For article, “Pensions and Chapter 9: Can Municipalities Use Bankruptcy to Solve Their Pension Woes?,” see 27 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 365 (2011).

For article, “Solving Insolvent Public Pensions: The Limitations of the Current Bankruptcy Option,” see 28 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 89 (2011).

For article, “Georgia Health Care Freedom Act,” see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 113 (2014).

For article, “Baby Ninth Amendments and Unenumerated Individual Rights in State Constitutions Before the Civil War,” see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (2017).

For comment, “Georgia’s Telemedicine Laws and Regulations: Protecting Against Health Care Access,” 68 Mercer L. Rev. 489 (2017).

For article, “Coequal Federalism and Federal-State Agencies,” see 55 Ga. L. Rev. 287 (2020).

For article, “Foreword: Lawyers and Linguists Collaborate in Using Corpus Linguistics to Produce New Insights Into Original Meaning,” see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. vi (2020).

For article, “‘We the Citizens?’A Corpus Linguistic Inquiry into the Use of ‘People’ and ‘Citizens’ in the Founding Era,” see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 665 (2020).

For note, “Degrees of Losing: A Challenge to the Federal ‘Frozen Benefit Rule,’” see 39 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 855, 885 (2023).

## Federalism Does Not Preclude Coopgranted Powers Are Exercised.

U.S. Const., amend. 10 has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451, 85 L. Ed. 609, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1222 (1941), overruled in part as stated in Palotai v. University of Maryland College Park, 959 F. Supp. 714, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9930 (D. Md. 1997), overruled in part as stated in, Treasurer of N.J. v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 684 F.3d 382, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13143 (3d Cir. 2012).

Effect on exercise of commerce

## Power.

U.S. Const., amend. 10 does not operate upon a valid exercise of power delegated to Congress by the commerce clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3. United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10182 (5th Cir. 1973).

## Minimum Wage.

The establishment by Congress of a minimum wage is a valid regulation of interstate commerce and does not violate U.S. Const., amend. 10. Morgan v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 32 F. Supp. 617, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3158 (D. Ga. 1940).

While Congress cannot directly command or force a state or municipality to comply with federal wage and hour concepts, it may, pursuant to the spending clause of the Constitution, fix the terms and conditions upon which money from the United States Treasury will be allotted and disbursed to the states and their political subdivisions. City of Macon v. Marshall, 439 F. Supp. 1209, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13232 (M.D. Ga. 1977). dards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., to a county is not prevented by U.S. Const., amend. 10. Prickett v. DeKalb County, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18139 (N.D. Ga. 2000), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 254 F.3d 74, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15279 (11th Cir. 2001).

Conflict of civil rights and police

## Application of the Fair Labor Stan-powers in Regulation of Business.

Civil rights do not authorize the operation of a business within a municipality in violation of ordinances enacted under police power and for the welfare of the community. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 482 F.2d 280, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695 (5th Cir. 1973).

Mere fact that only one party operating a business is affected by a regulation designed to localize the operation of such business in a certain district in the city does not show arbitrary and unreasonable or unjust discrimination in violation of organic rights. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 482 F.2d 280, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695 (5th Cir. 1973).

State and local zoning laws and or-

## Dinances Generally.

The power and necessity for state legislatures and municipal governments to impose restrictions through zoning laws and ordinances is no longer subject to question. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 482 F.2d 280, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695 (5th Cir. 1973).

Test of constitutionality of zoning


> The printed notes continue for 8,719 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-x.md?notes=all&start=11512