Tenth Amendment

Taxation on firearms Sonzinsky v. United States Tenth Amendment Printz v. U.S. 

The federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ( Brady Bill ) of 1994 required the chief law enforcement officer of each local jurisdiction to conduct bac%round checks of all persons wishing to buy a firearm, but no federal money was appropriated for the purpose. Two sheriffs, Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana, and Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, filed separate suits that challenged this provision of the Brady Act, claiming that forcing sheriffs to perform the checks at their own expense went beyond the powers of Congress as restricted by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Instead, the Court pointed to the concept of dual sovereignty, implied by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states 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. ... 

In the long term, however, the decision may limit the ability of Congress to create unfunded mandates (requirements that are imposed by a higher legislature but paid for by local jurisdictions). It is also relevant to the growing interest in the Tenth Amendment by activists who are attempting to restrain the exercise of federal power in favor of local control. Of course, Congress can always require that certain procedures be carried out if a state wishes to receive federal money for law enforcement or other purposes. 

T]he people seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by the People of the United States. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to the people. While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that the people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (citations omitted).. . ... 

The cooperative had also argued that even if the necessity defense is not allowed, the Controlled Substances Act exceeds the power of Congress under the constitution s Commerce Clause, and that enforcing this law against medical marijuana patients would deprive them of the right to due process and infringe on liberties guaranteed by the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. However, because these constitutional issues were not raised earlier in the appeals process, the Court declined to consider them. 

Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance. 

When discussing regulations in the United States, it is important to consider the implications of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows ... 

URL http //www.saf.org E-mail www saf.org Phone (800) 426-4302 James Madison Building 12500 NE Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Educational and advocacy organization focusing on the Second Amendment, considered as an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

European community, Council Directive of 18 June 1991 amending for the tenth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations , Official Journal of the European Communities L186 59-63. 

The OPCW Staff Regulations were adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at its Fourth Session (C-IV/DEC.25 dated 2 July 1999). Subsequently, the Staff Regulations were amended by the Conference at its Tenth Session (C-10/DEC.4 dated 8 November 2005), at its Twelfth Session (C-12/DEC.8 dated 7 November 2007) and at its Seventeenth Session (C-17/DEC.7 dated 27 November 2012). 

The following is the consolidated text of the Staff Regulations, approved by the Conference of States Parties at its Fourth Session and amended at its Tenth, Twelfth and Seventeenth Sessions, and the Interim Staff Rules, as amended by the Director-General, and as promulgated by the Director-General by OPCW-S/DGB/19 of 30 March 2012. It also reflects the amendment of Interim Staff Rule 4.1.05 as approved by the Executive Council at its Forty-Third Meeting on 24 July 2014 (EC-76/DEC.6, dated 24 July 2014). 

---